The Environmental L aw Institu te

For over three decades, the Environmental Law

Institute has played a pivotal role in shaping the

fields of environmental law, management, and

policy domestically and abroad. Today, eli is an

internationally recognized, independent research

and education center. Through its information

services, training courses and seminars, research

programs, and policy recommendations, the

Institute activates a broad constituency of environ-

mental professionals in government, industry, the

private bar, public interest groups, and academia.

Central to eli’s mission is convening this diverse

constituency to work cooperatively in developing

effective solutions to pressing environmental

problems. The Institute is governed by a board

of directors who represent a balanced mix of

leaders within the environmental profession.

Support for the Institute comes from individuals,

foundations, government, corporations, law firms,

and other sources.

Environmental Law Institute® P Street, n.w., Suite Washington, d.c. Telephone: ⁽⁾ -Fax: ⁽⁾ -E-mail: law@eli.orgWeb site: www.eli.org

isbn ---

Environmental Law Institute®Research ReportFirst State Biodiversity SymposiumJanuary -,

Status of the States:

Innovative State Strategies for

Biodiversity Conservation

Status of the States:Innovative State Strategies for

Biodiversity Conservation

A Report on the First State Biodiversity Symposium

Environmental Law InstituteState Biodiversity Program

January 17 – 18, 2001

Status of the States: Innovative State Strategies for Biodiversity Conservation

ELI Project #972509, 972510, 003101, ISBN # 1-58576-026-9.

Copyright 8 2001, Environmental Law Institute7, Washington, DC. All rights reserved.

An electronically retrievable copy (PDF file) of this report may be obtained for no cost from theEnvironmental Law Institute Web site <www.eli.org>. Click on APublications@ then A2001 ResearchReports@ to locate the file. [Note: ELI Terms of Use will apply and are available on site.]

(Environmental Law Institute7, The Environmental Forum7, ELR7, and the Environmental Law Reporter7

are registered trademarks of the Environmental Law Institute.)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Generous funding from the George Gund Foundation, Surdna Foundation, Curtis and EdithMunson Foundation, and Doris Duke Charitable Foundation made this symposium possible.Environmental Law Institute staff on the project included Jessica Wilkinson, Kelly Mott,Christina Kennedy, and Jim McElfish. Editorial assistance was provided by Elizabeth Seeger.

Artwork created by Patricia Kernan, scientific illustrator at the New York State Musuem.

i

ii

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary v

List of Symposium Participants ix

Introduction 1ELI Convenes Leaders from State Biodiversity Initiatives 1Background: ELI’s State Biodiversity Program 1Biodiversity Conservation Planning: States Step Up 2

Strategies for Implementing a Successful State Biodiversity Initiative 3Elements of Success: Structuring a Biodiversity Initiative 4Obstacles 7Issues to Consider 10

Biodiversity Assessment Methodologies 12Benefits of Developing a Statewide Assessment 12Uses for Statewide Assessments 12Unmet Information Needs 13Issues to Consider 13

Strategies for Providing Biodiversity Information to Decision-Makers 14Effective Strategies 14Obstacles to Delivering Biodiversity Information 15

Creating the Demand for Biodiversity Information 16Encouraging the Use of Information and Providing Support 16Issues to Consider 17

Conclusion and Recommendations 18Successful Elements of a State Biodiversity Effort: Structure and Process 18State Biodiversity Assessment Methodologies 19Biodiversity Information Delivery Mechanisms 19Creating Demand for Biodiversity Information 20Actions for Congress and State Legislatures 20Actions for State Agencies 20Actions for Philanthropic Institutions 21

Endnotes 22

Appendices 23A. State Program Descriptions 23

California Biodiversity Council 24Chicago Wilderness 25Delaware Biodiversity Initiative 26

iv

Florida’s Closing the Gaps Project 27Florida’s Ecological Network Project 28Hawaii Conservation Biology Initiative 29Illinois C2000 Ecosystems Program 30Indiana Biodiversity Initiative 31Kentucky Biodiversity Council 32Maine Forest Biodiversity Project 33Maryland’s Green Infrastructure Assessment 34Massachusetts EOEA Biodiversity Project 35Metropolitan Conservation Alliance 36Missouri Biodiversity Task Force and Missouri Biodiversity Council 37New Hampshire Biodiversity Conservation Project 38New Jersey’s Landscape Project 39New Mexico Biodiversity Project 40New York State Biodiversity Project 41Ohio Biodiversity Plan 42Oklahoma Biodiversity Plan 43Oregon Biodiversity Project 44Pennsylvania Biodiversity Partnership 45Wisconsin Biodiversity Plan 46

B. Bibliography of Available State and Regional Biodiversity Initiative Publications 47

C. Points of Contact for State and Regional Initiatives 53

D. Grant Opportunities 57

E. Additional Resources 61

STATUS OF THE STATES:INNOVATIVE STATE STRATEGIES FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

Executive SummaryThe United States now faces a biodiversity crisis of historic proportions. It is estimated that“one-third of the native U.S. flora and fauna is considered to be of conservation concern.”States are currently facing unprecedented habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation due tosprawl development, agriculture, and other land modifications. Many states are also beingconfronted with contentious Endangered Species Act battles. However, few, if any, federal lawsor programs address protection of the broader array of plants, animals, and ecosystems beforethey become imperiled.

In response, states and state-based groups across the nation have stepped forward to addressthe issue of biodiversity loss. From California and Oregon, to Florida and Maine, state effortshave sought to develop strategies for addressing the erosion of their natural heritage through thedevelopment of comprehensive, collaborative, and proactive strategies for biodiversityconservation and restoration.

A state biodiversity initiative typically consists of (1) a strategy for convening multiple interestgroups and institutions to achieve consensus on methods to conserve biodiversity; (2) a strategyto identify and assess areas of biodiversity concern for conservation; (3) an effort to reviewstate policy and legal mechanisms that may affect biodiversity; and (4) a strategy for educatingthe public about biodiversity in the context of the state in which they live.

Successful Elements of a State Biodiversity Effort: Structure and ProcessState biodiversity efforts should:

• Secure support from high-level officials from the outset• Include a broad range of stakeholders early in the process, including locally elected

officials• Appoint or hire a full- or part-time coordinator or facilitator to organize meetings• Establish clear, measurable goals to guide the initiative• Develop a method for monitoring on-the-ground progress• Develop an education and outreach campaign

• Develop a strategy for reaching private landowners• Consider a citizen science component

• Develop a strategy for communicating to the press• Focus on tangible results early and throughout the project• Establish a mechanism for delivering biodiversity information to target audiences

State Biodiversity Assessment MethodologiesBiodiversity assessment methodologies, or GIS-based efforts designed to prioritize conservationefforts in a state or region, take many different forms. There are several issues to consider whendeveloping such a program:

v

• Before developing information products, survey the array of potential users to determinetheir information needs

• Secure support from state agencies to ensure that results will be incorporated into stateinitiatives, such as land acquisition programs, grant programs, and public land managementdecision-making

• Adopt a singular map for each state. Where multiple assessments are developed to servedifferent goals, develop one map that will be presented to the public.

Sufficient data for analyzing status, trends, and opportunities for conserving biodiversity arecurrently lacking in the following areas:

• Data sets of aquatic biodiversity• Data sets of socio-economic information• Mechanisms for making information on at-risk species more accessible to statewide and

regional biodiversity efforts (i.e., Natural Heritage data)• Information on the distribution and dispersal pathways of non-native invasive species,

areas vulnerable to future invasions, and detection and control strategies• Data that are usable at the county level but that are compatible/consistent statewide

Biodiversity Information Delivery MechanismsFederal agencies, state agencies, and/or private organizations should conduct additional researchon effective mechanisms for delivering biodiversity information to key decision-makers. Thefollowing audiences should be considered and interviewed before delivery mechanisms aredeveloped:

• Local governments• State agencies, for a variety of purposes, including land acquisition, land management,

grant programs, regulatory decision-making, transportation planning, and facility siting• Private conservation organizations, including land trusts• Federal agencies• Private sector companies, including those who have large landholdings, such as utility and

timber companies• Private citizens for educational purposes

State agencies or state-based private organizations should establish permanent clearinghouses forbiodiversity information. These entities should be equipped to provide technical support andoutreach to local governments and other potential users of biodiversity information in the state.

Creating Demand for Biodiversity InformationFederal agencies, state agencies, and private organizations should conduct additional research onhow to stimulate sustained demand for biodiversity information from a variety of audiences.Biodiversity information must be marketed both externally and within state agencies. To createdemand, state biodiversity initiatives should take the following actions:

• Create new or interpret existing regulatory authorities to require the use of biodiversityinformation

vi

• Develop incentives for agencies, organizations, and individuals to utilize biodiversityinformation

• Market the benefits of using biodiversity information, such as saving time, funds, orminimizing the potential for legal conflict

• Create incentives to encourage municipalities to do more regional planning

Actions for Congress and State LegislaturesThere are several actions that state legislatures and Congress can take to help support efforts toprotect and restore biodiversity at the state level:

• Secure permanent, stable sources of funding for land acquisition, conservation of non-game wildlife species and plants, and management of public lands

• Develop new incentive programs or tailor existing programs that promote habitatconservation on private lands

• Provide legal standing for state biodiversity efforts• Institute biodiversity mandates to commit states to biodiversity conservation• Provide funding for the establishment of biodiversity clearinghouses in each state

Actions for State AgenciesThere are several actions that state agencies can take to help support efforts to protect andrestore biodiversity:

• Establish a central clearinghouse for biodiversity information• Create state biological survey programs• Allow greater access to biodiversity information• Provide technical support to private landowners and local governments• Market biodiversity within the state agencies• Secure permanent, stable sources of funding for land acquisition, conservation of non-

game wildlife species and plants, and management of public lands• Adopt new policies or utilize existing policies to address invasive species• Incorporate biodiversity considerations into state open space acquisition programs (i.e.,

use data from biodiversity assessments or statewide conservation plans)• Develop new incentive programs that promote habitat and species conservation on private

lands• Tailor existing incentive programs, such as Farm Bill programs, to conserve priority areas

identified by a statewide conservation plan• Work with partner agencies and the governor’s office to establish a memorandum of

understanding or executive order that creates a state biodiversity effort

Actions for Philanthropic InstitutionsThere are several actions that private philanthropic institutions can take to help support efforts toprotect and restore biodiversity at the state level:

• Support collaborative statewide and regional biodiversity conservation efforts• Provide multi-year grants to allow for absorption of new programs over time• Support efforts to develop new biodiversity information, disseminate that information, and

create demand for the information

vii

• Foster exchange of information and networking opportunities for groups working onbiodiversity conservation efforts across the country

viii

LIST OF SYMPOSIUM PARTICIPANTS

STATE PARTICIPANTS

California Biodiversity CouncilCarl Rountree, Bureau of Land Management

Chicago WildernessTim Sullivan, Brookfield Zoo

Delaware Biodiversity Conservation PartnershipNicholas DiPasquale, Secretary, Department of NaturalResources and Environmental ControlLorraine Fleming, Delaware Nature Society

Florida’s Closing the Gaps ProjectRandy Kautz, Florida Fish and Wildlife ConservationCommission

Florida’s Ecological Network ProjectTom Hoctor, University of Florida

Hawaii’s Secretariat for Conservation BiologyKen Kaneshiro, Secretariat for Conservation Biology

Illinois Conservation 2000 Ecosystem PartnershipsMarvin Hubbell, Illinois Department of NaturalResources

Indiana Biodiversity InitiativeBarb Hosler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Kentucky Biodiversity CouncilHugh Archer, Commissioner, Kentucky Department ofNatural ResourcesWard Wilson, Bernardin Lochmueller & Associates

Maine Forest Biodiversity ProjectMolly Docherty, Maine Natural Areas Program

Maryland’s Green Infrastructure AssessmentJohn Wolf, Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Massachusetts EOEA Biodiversity ProjectBob Durand, Secretary, Executive Office ofEnvironmental AffairsSharon McGregor, Executive Office of EnvironmentalAffairs

Metropolitan Conservation AllianceMichael Klemens, Metropolitan Conservation Alliance

Missouri Biodiversity Task ForceDennis Figg, Missouri Department of ConservationTimothy Nigh, Missouri Department of Conservation

New Hampshire Biodiversity Conservation ProjectRichard Cook, Audubon Society of New HampshireNancy Girard, Conservation Law Foundation

New Jersey Landscape ProjectLarry Niles, New Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtectionCari Wild, Deputy Commissioner, New Jersey Departmentof Environmental Protection

New Mexico Biodiversity ProjectJudy Flynn-O’Brien, Center for Wildlife Law, Universityof New Mexico

New York State Biodiversity ProjectElizabeth Johnson, American Museum of Natural History

Ohio Biodiversity PlanStephen Sedam, National Audubon Society/Ohio

Oklahoma Biodiversity CouncilRon Suttles, Department of Wildlife Conservation

Oregon Biodiversity ProjectSara Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife

Pennsylvania Biodiversity PartnershipJoan S. Clippinger, Department of Conservation andNatural ResourcesSue Thompson, Pennsylvania Biodiversity Partnership

Wisconsin Biodiversity PlanSigne Holtz, Department of Natural Resources

ix

OTHER PARTICIPANTS

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INSTITUTE STAFF

Mark Benedict, The Conservation Fund

Christina Bernat, Delaware Department of NaturalResources and Environmental Control

Dail Brown, National Marine Fisheries Service

David Challinor, Smithsonian Institution

Patrick Crist, National GAP

Katie Distler, The Turner Foundation

Stephanie Flack, The Nature Conservancy MD/DCChapter

Gary Frazer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Jeffrey Frithsen, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Nancy Gloman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Caren Glotfelty, Heinz Endowments

Susan Haseltine, U.S. Geological Survey

Stevens Heckscher, Natural Lands Trust, Inc

Lori Hidinger, Ecological Society of America

Thomas Hourigan, National Marine Fisheries Service

Peter Howell, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation

Pam Hunt, Audubon Society of New Hampshire

Jon Jensen, The George Gund Foundation

Mike Johnson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Peter Jutro, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

William Klein, American Planning Association

John Kostyack, National Wildlife Federation

Ronald Landy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Kristy Manning, Island Press

Martha Naley, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Patrick Parenteau, Vermont Law School

Jay Pendergrass, Environmental Law Institute

John Perrecone, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Robert Roberts, Environmental Council of States

Mark Schaefer, Association for BiodiversityInformation

Mark Shaffer, Defenders of Wildlife

Eric Sprague, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Bruce Stein, Association for Biodiversity Information

Jack Vanderryn, The Moriah Fund

Phil Wallis, Natural Lands Trust, Inc.

Laura Hood Watchman, Defenders of Wildlife

Andy Zepp, Land Trust Alliance

Robert Zimmerman, Delaware Department of NaturalResources and Environmental Control

Kelly Mott

Jessica Wilkinson

Christina Kennedy

Jim McElfish

x

INTRODUCTION

ELI Convenes Leaders from State Biodiversity InitiativesIn approximately half of the states, broad coalitions of individuals from state, federal,

and local government, conservation organizations, and the private sector have initiated efforts todevelop and implement comprehensive statewide or regional strategies for biodiversityconservation. On January 17 – 18, 2001, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) convened keyleaders from all of the known state efforts and other interested parties to participate in asymposium exploring the lessons and experiences of these initiatives. The goals of thesymposium were to identify successful strategies and approaches that can improve theeffectiveness of statewide biodiversity conservation efforts.

This report is based on the discussions that took place at the symposium.1 It draws onboth the presentations and the discussions to summarize common themes, highlight importantissues, and suggest actions to help improve the effectiveness of state biodiversity efforts.2

Three questions were posed throughout the symposium. The answers to thesequestions are critical if substantial progress is to be made in protecting and conserving thenation’s biological diversity. They are based on the premise that decisions about how public andprivate lands are used and managed affect the factors that cause biodiversity loss – primarilyhabitat loss and fragmentation, habitat degradation, and the introduction of non-native invasivespecies.

• How can natural resource professionals better develop biodiversity information forthose whose decisions affect how land is used and managed?

• How can natural resource professionals ensure that this information is provided to keydecision-makers in a format that is useful to them?

• How can policymakers create requirements or incentives for decision-makers to ensurethat biodiversity concerns are incorporated into decisions about how public and privatelands are used and managed?

Background: ELI’s State Biodiversity ProgramConservation of biological diversity in the United States has often been the subject of

national discussions that focus on federal management of public lands and protection ofthreatened and endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act. However, manyof the threats to biodiversity, and many of the opportunities to conserve it relate to activities onboth public and private land conducted under state laws and policies. Indeed, most of thehuman activities that affect biodiversity – from land development, utility siting, highway planning,and water quantity and quality management, to fish and game management, farming, forestry,and recreational uses – are addressed in some manner by state laws and programs. Some ofthese laws and programs present significant opportunities to conserve and restore biodiversity,while others have adverse effects.

1

Examining policies and planning to protect and restore biological communities at thestate level makes a great deal of sense. First, states are generally large enough to encompasssignificant portions of several ecoregions, presenting opportunities to plan and take action at anappropriate scale. Second, the laws, policies, and decisions that affect biodiversity are uniformacross an entire state, such as state enabling laws for land use planning and zoning,environmental regulation, transportation planning, public land acquisition, and public landmanagement. And third, state resources often provide useful information and ways to thinkabout biodiversity including information from natural heritage programs, state universities andmuseums, conservation organizations, and industry groups and associations. Recognition ofthese factors has resulted in the emergence of a new national trend – the development of statebiodiversity conservation strategies.

In 1994, ELI launched its State Biodiversity Program with a grant from The MoriahFund to examine the effects of Indiana’s laws, policies, and institutions on biological diversity.The Institute’s research culminated in the publication of Indiana’s Biological Diversity:Strategies and Tools for Conservation. The main objective of the project was to catalyzeinterest by a broad coalition to develop a statewide strategy for protecting and restoringbiodiversity in Indiana. In 1996, a diverse group of resource professionals from the public,private, and nonprofit sectors adopted a mission statement, goals, and an organizationalstructure for what became the Indiana Biodiversity Initiative. ELI worked closely with theInitiative to provide coordination, facilitation, and technical support.

Following ELI’s initial work in Indiana, the Institute was invited by partner organizationsand agencies to help develop statewide strategies for protecting biodiversity in Ohio, NewMexico, Delaware, New York, and New Hampshire. In the course of the Institute’s work atthe state level, ELI became familiar with similar biodiversity efforts underway in other states.

It became clear to ELI that the key leaders from these numerous independent initiativesneeded the opportunity to sit down with one another to discuss successful strategies, obstaclesovercome, and lessons learned. In January 2001, representatives of 23 biodiversityconservation initiatives gathered in Washington, DC to share these lessons and to make plansfor future progress. More than 35 additional stakeholders from federal agencies, philanthropicfoundations, conservation organizations, and publishers joined them to learn about and advancethe agenda of state-based biodiversity conservation.

Biodiversity Conservation Planning: States Step Up

The United States now faces a biodiversity crisis of historic proportions. It is estimatedthat “one-third of the native U.S. flora and fauna is considered to be of conservation concern.”3

An alarming 69 percent of freshwater mussels are considered at-risk, while 14 percent of allbird species in the country are likewise imperiled.4 Habitat loss, ecosystem degradation, andnon-native invasive species introductions are the three most pervasive threats to biodiversity.5

2

States are currently facing unprecedented habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentationdue to sprawl development, agriculture, and other land modifications. Many states are alsobeing confronted with contentious Endangered Species Act battles. However, few, if any,federal laws or programs address protection of the broader array of plants, animals, andecosystems in the U.S. before they become imperiled. In response, states and state-basedgroups across the nation have stepped forward to address the issue of biodiversity loss. FromCalifornia and Oregon, to Florida and Maine, state efforts have sought to develop strategies foraddressing the erosion of their natural heritage through the development of comprehensive,collaborative, and proactive strategic plans for biodiversity conservation and restoration.

A state biodiversity initiative typically consists of (1) a strategy for convening multipleinterest groups and institutions to achieve consensus on methods to conserve biodiversity; (2) ascience-based strategy to identify and assess areas of biodiversity concern for conservation; (3)an effort to review state policy and legal mechanisms that may affect biodiversity; and (4) astrategy for educating the public about biodiversity in the context of the state in which they live.6

Although each of these components is essential to the development of an effective statewidestrategic plan, they are often approached in various ways by different state biodiversityinitiatives.

The origins of state biodiversity strategies also differ. Some state efforts, such as thosein Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and Kentucky, were launched as state governmental initiatives toimprove land management, engage the conservation-oriented public, or reorient management ofongoing state programs. Others, such as the Indiana Biodiversity Initiative or the OregonBiodiversity Project, led by the Defenders of Wildlife, were organized by nonprofit organizationsto engage state and federal agencies and the private sector. Although most of the statebiodiversity efforts have become broad-based coalitions working in partnership to develop astrategy, several, such as those in Ohio and Wisconsin, principally remain efforts by stateagencies to integrate biodiversity conservation principles across divisions within an agency (seeAppendix A for summaries of these state efforts).

STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTING A SUCCESSFUL STATE BIODIVERSITY

INITIATIVE

Successful biodiversity initiatives share several common features. Several of thesymposium discussions sought to identify the components of an effective state biodiversityinitiative and potential obstacles.

Regardless of the outcome of developing a state biodiversity plan, the process ofdeveloping a strategy and the relationships built in doing so were recognized as valuable inthemselves (Docherty, Holtz, Rountree). Other tangential benefits included better coordinationamong and between state agencies, federal agencies, and the private sector, and a renewedfocus on public education and outreach.

3

Elements of Success: Structuring a Biodiversity Initiative

Symposium participants identified several strategic, structural, and process-orientedactions that they believed helped ensure a successful state biodiversity effort.

Sufficient Participation and SupportSecuring support for biodiversity initiatives from high-level officials early in the process

was a central element to success in a substantial number of states (Fleming, Nigh, Rountree). InMassachusetts and Delaware, the clear support of the states’ natural resource agency andcabinet-level officials helped solidify commitment and improved chances of on-the-groundsuccess. Similarly, Massachusetts found that identifying “local heroes” within the state legislaturewas an effective strategy (Durand). When representatives are developing a strategy for securingsupport from key decision-makers, they should seek the support of individuals that have theauthority to commit resources and change the established structure. Having buy-in from theseindividuals can be the key to transforming a collaborative effort “on paper” into a concreteprogram with tangible results.7

Several state efforts represented at the symposium also maintained that success hingedon involving a broad range of stakeholders as early in the process as possible (Docherty,Fleming, Thompson). Participation and some level of buy-in and commitment should be soughtfrom both public and private institutions (DiPasquale) and the involvement of locally electedofficials should be aggressively pursued early and throughout the process (Rountree).Additionally, building a broad coalition, rather than having a focused agency-directed effort, canhelp improve both the chances for success and the ability of the project to produce tangibleresults. With diverse membership, partner organizations and agencies can bring the biodiversitymessage to a broader audience. Engaging all key stakeholders and allowing for representationof all relevant positions can increase the quality, strength, and implementation of ensuringrecommendations.8

In an effort to avoid opposition from certain constituencies (e.g., Farm Bureau,development interests) several states worked hard to include representatives from potentialopponents as significant participants in their initiatives (Indiana, Kentucky, Maine). Maine foundthat enlisting the participation of an individual who could represent both sides – conservation aswell as industry – helped secure greater buy-in from divergent interests (Docherty).

Symposium participants suggested that because decision-making becomes morechallenging as a group increases in number, a steering committee or executive body of a statebiodiversity initiative should have a manageable number of participants (Docherty). Onesuggested method for determining representation is to evaluate whether each potentialparticipant is meaningfully affected by the issues under consideration and also has the capacityto participate.9

4

Attitude and process

Success is also often dependent upon the commitment and innovation of the individualparticipants. California found that success was dependent upon those involved being willing toaccept risk and to be creative (Rountree). Attention to the personal characteristics andcommitments of those engaging in a collaborative process is important. It is not simply a matterof identifying the right constituencies to have represented.

At the outset, participants in state biodiversity strategy efforts should agree on whetherdecisions for the group will be made by consensus or majority. Consensus-based decision-making, in which any partner can object to and veto a proposal, has been shown to producemore long-lasting agreements in environmental negotiations.10 However, a consensus-basedprocess often consumes more time and resources, requiring more effort in bringing participantsto a common understanding of the issues, especially when a greater scope of issues andpositions are at hand.

Defining group membership and deciding whether to open meetings to interestedobservers are also key issues to consider. Maine found that holding private meetings wasessential since this approach facilitated open exchange among the interested parties that madeup the formal group (Docherty), while other states, such as Pennsylvania, have allowed allinterested persons to attend meetings (Thompson). In determining the extent of openness duringthe collaboration process, the executive body should evaluate whether decisions being madeaffect only the parties around the decision-making table or whether they have ramificationsbeyond the participating organizations (e.g., private landowners). A transparent process mightbuild broader support for the state conservation effort, which is always essential. Conversely, itcould also initiate public or political opposition where none existed before.

In Delaware, Indiana, and Maine, participants expressed the necessity of hiring a full- orpart-time coordinator to make the effort run smoothly (Docherty, Fleming, Wilkinson). Mainecredited much of its success to the use of professional facilitators (Docherty). In Indiana, havinga designated coordinator has proved crucial to holding together a diverse coalition without oneagency or organization taking the lead. When the effort experienced a hiatus in the coordinatorposition, regular meetings halted and progress stalled (Hosler).

In structuring a biodiversity effort and identifying goals and objectives, it is critical thatthere be concrete products and tangible results (Docherty). Collaborative efforts candegenerate into discussion groups without a clear set of goals and results to achieve. It isimportant that on-the-ground success be demonstrated early and throughout the effort. Tangiblesuccesses improve the likelihood of securing funding, maintaining the involvement andcommitment of participants, and drawing widespread positive attention to the effort.

5

Structural and financial issues

The sources and amounts of funding available to state natural resource agencies forconservation activities can profoundly affect the level of commitment to biodiversityconsiderations. However, agency funding for conservation is not the only important factor.Funding for the development and implementation of biodiversity initiatives also matters. In eachcase, stability and continuity of funding are essential.

State biodiversity strategy efforts have acquired funding from a variety of sources.Oklahoma obtained a substantial grant from Weyerhaeuser, which launched the effort andsupported it through its initial stages. Several state efforts patched together small grants fromphilanthropic foundations and then attracted state funding (Delaware, Indiana), while othersrelied on larger grants from federal agencies (Oregon). Missouri has benefited from having anongoing, reliable state funding mechanism for land acquisition, which could accommodate someplanning and assure implementation (Nigh). Other states have had difficulty where funding wasnot provided and linked to implementation of the planning effort. In Ohio, for example, the stateagency-led biodiversity strategy was not supported by internal funding allocations and has haddifficulty sustaining itself after a change in agency leadership.

It is important also to recognize the dynamics that can affect funding from state wildlifeagencies. State wildlife departments are primarily funded by revenue from hunting and fishinglicenses and a federal excise tax placed on hunting- and fishing-related equipment.Unfortunately, no such permanent source of funding exists for non-game efforts (seewww.teaming.com for more information). This funding situation often leaves state resourceagencies with limited budgets to use in protecting and restoring non-game wildlife, plants, andnatural areas, and can skew wildlife conservation efforts toward single-species management. Incontrast, states with well-funded acquisition programs, including permanent sources ofconservation funding for land acquisition and non-game protection activities, can help ensure asuccessful state biodiversity conservation effort (Nigh). When the disparity between funding forgame species and non-game wildlife and plant conservation is removed or partially equalized,state agencies are often in a better position to provide leadership on biodiversity conservation.

Communicating the message: education and outreachParticipants found that having a targeted education and outreach effort was an essential

component of success. In Massachusetts, the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs isworking to build a broad-based constituency for biodiversity issues through education andoutreach to the general public through events and materials (McGregor).

Biodiversity must be marketed inside natural resource agencies as well as outside. InMissouri, the Department of Conservation’s Natural History Division focuses on the survey,monitoring, and reporting on biodiversity in the state and acts as a catalyst for “selling”biodiversity inside and outside the agency (Figg). A central goal of the Ohio Department ofNatural Resources’ biodiversity effort was to educate natural resource professionals within theagency about the values and threats to biodiversity. Several state and regional efforts, includingChicago Wilderness, Hawaii, and Missouri, found that focusing part of the effort on increasingpublic awareness about the importance of imperiled ecosystems and threats to associatedbiodiversity was essential (Kaneshiro, Nigh, Sullivan).

6

One very effective strategy several states have used to educate and build support for abiodiversity effort is to engage citizens in biodiversity monitoring. By utilizing experts to traincitizens and by encouraging non-professional naturalists to conduct inventories, the generalpublic can gain hands-on experience and learn about biodiversity in their own backyards. Inaddition, citizen science efforts can add value to scientific monitoring (Durand, Holtz, Hosler,Hubbell, Kaneshiro, Sedam, Sullivan). For example, in June 2000, the MassachusettsExecutive Office of Environmental Affairs sponsored “Biodiversity Days” in over 100 cities andtowns across the state. This three-day event brought together 15,000 citizens, assisted byexperts, to inventory animals and plants in their communities. Because of the overwhelmingsuccess of the program in 2000, Biodiversity Days will be launched statewide in 2001.

To better market biodiversity, one participant noted that conservation efforts should befolded into a “livable communities” initiative to approach the issue in a broader social context.When determining how to communicate the message, focus on values and emotionalattachments to places and natural communities to build a constituency, rather than just scientificdata (Sedam).

Obstacles

Symposium participants identified several obstacles that can slow or derail biodiversityefforts.

Lack of education and understandingOne major obstacle to biodiversity initiatives is the lack of broad public education and

outreach. The importance of a coordinated education and outreach effort cannot be overstated.The public often does not perceive there to be a biodiversity crisis, which in turn allows electedofficials to neglect conservation issues (Sedam).

Defining “biodiversity”Coming to agreement on a definition of biodiversity has consumed inordinate amounts of

time and has, therefore, slowed biodiversity efforts. One participant suggested that statebiodiversity efforts might benefit from working together to develop a consistent definition ofbiodiversity that is easily conveyed to the general public (Frithsen). There may be value andeducational merit in the process of different constituencies reaching agreement on a commondefinition.

7

Organizational issuesSymposium participants identified several issues that should be considered when

organizing a biodiversity conservation initiative. Defining the membership of the effort can be adifficult and often time-consuming exercise (Thompson). Several collaborative efforts found thatwhen new partners joined mid-way a significant amount of time was spent getting them caughtup. In addition, previously decided issues became subject to re-evaluation (Nigh, Thompson).Unless the parameters for membership, attendance, and participation are clear, oppositiongroups can begin attending meetings late in the process in a calculated move to derail thebiodiversity conservation effort.

In a broad-based effort, the various interest groups bring to the table differentoperational paradigms and assumptions regarding the positions and intentions of the othermembers (Thompson). Although this can make progress difficult and slow, it is often assuagedonce one-on-one relationships are established. The Maine Forest Biodiversity Projectbenefited from informal gatherings and out-of-office outings, since they facilitated increasedcommunication, understanding, and consensus among participants (Docherty). Once partnersbegin to disclose their interests, biases, and policy objectives, trust and respect amongstakeholders develop, increasing the legitimacy and longevity of the collaboration.11

Several state or regional biodiversity efforts have grappled with whether to remain aloose coalition of diverse interests without one single agency or organization taking a lead, or tohave one agency or organization play a central convening role. There is no clear answer. Somestate initiatives have had difficulty in governance issues when the effort is not specifically“housed” within a non-profit organization, governmental agency, or other institution (Hosler). Inboth Indiana and Maine, biodiversity initiatives were not housed in one of the partnerorganizations. However, in Maine, a professional mediator was hired to hold the effort togetherand move it along (Docherty). The Indiana Biodiversity Initiative found that not having a non-profit status presented an obstacle to soliciting foundation grants. Without a secure source offunding, the Initiative also had difficulty hiring and maintaining part- or full-time staff tocoordinate the project and achieve its goals. The Initiative did eventually become a project ofthe Tides Foundation in order to deal with this financial issue. The Initiative hopes that remaininga broad-based and active coalition unaffiliated with one particular agency or organization mayultimately help the effort’s credibility at the local level and with the legislature (Hosler,Wilkinson).

One benefit of housing an effort within a state agency is that it solidifies the state’scommitment. Symposium participants noted that if the initiative produces data that will be usedfor regulatory purposes, the data must be legally defensible. State agencies are often morecomfortable defending data in a regulatory setting than are non-governmental organizations oracademic institutions. However, some outside parties may distrust a government-led initiative.Efforts led by non-governmental organizations may be able to secure state buy-in at a later date.

8

Uncertain state and local governmental commitmentSeveral states have found that overcoming government ambivalence, attitudes, and

culture are obstacles (Cook, Thompson). In addition, lack of leadership from the state resourceagency or high-level state officials has been a roadblock in some instances (Sedam). In somecases, inadequate public funding for environmental programs can limit government involvementand options for a statewide effort (Cook).

In several states, biodiversity efforts have had difficulty attracting and maintaining localgovernment involvement (DiPasquale, Rountree).

Private property rights issuesIn many states across the nation, the majority of the land base is privately owned. If

significant progress in conservation is to be made, the focus of biodiversity initiatives must reachbeyond public lands to address how private land is used and managed.

In several states, private property rights activists have generated negative publicity aboutthe state biodiversity initiative. In Missouri, private land rights groups waged a media campaignagainst the state’s inter-agency effort to coordinate resource planning (Nigh). Concerns oversuch opposition have forced biodiversity efforts to lower the bar of their goals or objectives inother regions.

Participants identified several issues to remain aware of when making goals andproducts of a biodiversity effort publicly visible. It is important to frame the issue appropriately,define the goals early, and restate the goals often. Misunderstandings and intentionalmisinformation about the goals of state biodiversity initiatives can inflame concerns over privateproperty rights.

Several state efforts addressed private property rights concerns early and head-on.Maine and Massachusetts brought potential opponents into the discussion up-front (Docherty,Durand). Several states fostered a grassroots movement to support the effort and counterpossible opposition. For example, Wisconsin successfully involved local people to buildsupport. The state agency was interested in launching a project to protect a large parcel of landthat had the potential of being opposed by private property rights interest groups. Prior toinitiating the project, a staff person who was raised in the area spent six months engaging localpeople, which helped build support from the local Farm Bureau districts and local citizens(Holtz).

9

Substantive Issues to Consider

Participants raised several issues throughout the symposium that should be consideredwhen developing a statewide or regional biodiversity effort.

Focusing conservation on at-risk or pristine areasSymposium participants paid considerable attention to the question of whether

protection efforts should focus on sites that are at-risk of development or those that are pristineand ecologically significant (Sullivan). For example, Maryland’s Green InfrastructureAssessment project prioritized areas for protection not only by its ecological ranking (based onnatural features such as proportion of natural cover and interior forest) but also by its threatfrom development (using land stewardship and county zoning information) (Wolf).12

Conservation opportunities vary between states, as well as among different regionswithin the same state. In New Hampshire, there are many opportunities in the northern portionof the state to purchase, manage, or preserve large tracts of land, and development is not yet asevere threat. In southern New Hampshire, however, development pressures are great and onlylimited opportunities exist to conserve remaining habitats (Cook).

One participant noted the importance of giving attention to enduring or permanentfeatures of the land (e.g., elevation, slope, aspect, soils, geology) and not just to the currentstatus of natural resources. For example, south-facing slopes, even if logged, have ecologicalvalue. Such features should not be neglected when weighing whether to protect at-risk landversus fully functioning or pristine landscapes (Docherty).

Reaching out to private landownersIf we are to make a significant contribution to biodiversity conservation and restoration,

efforts must focus on reducing the conversion, fragmentation, degradation, and introduction ofnon-native invasive species on private lands. As a result, most conservation will have to beaccomplished through voluntary efforts on private lands (Docherty). Currently, many states donot have adequate conservation incentive programs for private landowners and communities(Cook, Docherty, Kaneshiro, Vickerman). Agricultural incentive programs should add abiodiversity component and new private land incentive programs should be developed(Hubbell).

Watershed vs. ecosystem: the unit of planningSeveral states have organized their biodiversity efforts along ecosystem boundaries,

while others have done so according to watersheds. Ecosystem-based planning has beenwidely adopted by many state agencies, federal agencies (USDA Forest Service), as well asnational organizations, such as The Nature Conservancy and World Wildlife Fund. In general,ecosystem-based planning classifies regions according to climate, landscape attributes (such aselevation, geology, soils), and their unique assemblages of plant and animal communities.

Watersheds have also emerged as a unit for planning and management in some stateagencies. Symposium participants stated that watershed planning can force traditionally isolatedpolitical jurisdictions to coordinate, possibly leading to cross-boundary municipal agreements.In addition, watersheds are easily recognized and communicated. In Hawaii, utilizingwatersheds as the basis for action has increased the success of reaching local people andprivate landowners (Kaneshiro). Massachusetts has planned by watersheds, assigning leaderson the ground to help communicate with local governments (Durand).

10

Wisconsin initiated a model for ecosystem management decision-making, but convertedto watershed boundaries when the program was implemented in the field. The state naturalresource agency not only conducted biodiversity planning according to watershed units but alsorestructured the entire agency according to this method. This strategy had substantialadvantages, but also created some resistance and confusion because managers’ responsibilitiesare often aligned with jurisdictional or legal boundaries (Holtz).

Despite the benefits, watershed planning may fail to capture certain biological andlandscape patterns (e.g., patterns of disturbance regimes and vegetational structure). Onesolution might be to include ecological classification systems within the watershed analysis(Nigh) or to conduct the analysis on the most compatible unit or scale (i.e., ecosystems) andthen subdivide it by watershed, municipality, or any other category to facilitate implementation(Niles).

Measuring successState biodiversity efforts currently seem ill equipped to assess on-the-ground

effectiveness, such as the protection of species and ecosystems, or policy successes. Long-term indicators of success and measures to track progress are needed. State biodiversityconservation efforts must be able to assess not only if state biodiversity programs are protectingrare, threatened, and representative species and natural communities, but also if they areeffectively mitigating potential future threats (Sullivan) and protecting assemblages of species notcurrently at risk. Biodiversity efforts must also have the capacity to determine whethersuccesses are commensurate with the costs of protection (Klemens). For example,Massachusetts has found that the use of conservation restrictions/easements is a very cost-effective conservation tool relative to fee-simple acquisition (Durand).

A first step in measuring success is to clearly define the goals that the partnership istrying to achieve in a way that is operational or easily measured. States should then implementstrategic monitoring to measure on-the-ground outcomes against the goals or timelines set forthby the coalition.13

One possibility for tracking the success of protecting plants, animals, and ecosystems isto utilize citizen-led monitoring efforts to track long-term trends (Hubbell). Not only can citizen-based monitoring efforts produce useful scientific data, but they can also help to build politicalsupport for the overall biodiversity conservation initiative (Sullivan).

11

BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES

Many biodiversity initiatives have developed region- or statewide assessments to helpguide conservation efforts (see Appendix B). The methodologies developed by state-basedprograms reflect different goals (e.g., protection of endangered and threatened species,community representation, biological hot spots, or linking habitat blocks). However, they allutilize geographic information systems (GIS) to analyze physical, biological, and socio-economicfactors. The maps produced by these assessments are used to guide statewide conservationand education activities. GIS-based assessments allow for the development of a large-scale,long-term view that can help partners plan proactively to protect important habitat andecosystems (Durand, Niles).

Benefits of Developing a Statewide AssessmentParticipants identified several benefits of developing a statewide biodiversity

assessment. Although all states have natural heritage programs, which are valuable sources ofinformation on at-risk plants, animals, and communities, their data are rigorously protected anddistribution to the public is limited in some states. By including this information in a GIS-basedprogram that extrapolates point data into polygons or habitat patches, otherwise location-specific information can be released to the public (Niles). Finally, maps that identifyconservation priorities can be used to guide state initiatives, such as land acquisition programsand public land management decision-making, and are effective tools for communication (Niles).

Uses for Statewide AssessmentsThe assessment methodologies designed by the state biodiversity efforts were

developed to serve many different purposes. Biodiversity projects have been designed to:• Prioritize public land acquisition (Durand, Hoctor, Holtz, Niles)• Prioritize funding for public grant programs (Hoctor)• Provide local governments with biodiversity information to guide land use planning and

zoning (Durand, Niles)• Guide state agency regulatory programs (Niles)• Provide citizens and non-profit organizations with conservation tools (Niles)• Guide stewardship of public and private conservation areas (Niles)• Design projects that will lead to the protection of connected habitats (corridors or

greenways connecting bioreserves, ecological reserves, or interconnected “hubs” ofhabitat) (Cook, Docherty, Durand, Wolf)

• Guide mitigation planning (Hoctor)• Guide facilities location planning (Hoctor)

12

Unmet information needsThe natural resource professionals who designed these different methodologies utilized

existing data sets and developed new data sets. In the process, they have identified severalinformation gaps.

Aquatic biodiversity information was cited as most lacking by symposium participants.The Florida “Closing the Gaps” project did not have adequate information on aquaticbiodiversity (Hoctor). In Oregon, project leaders found that aquatic information was oftenincompatible with other terrestrial biodiversity information and was of lower quality(Vickerman). However, Maine and Maryland did have adequate aquatic information throughMaine’s aquatic biodiversity project (Docherty) and Maryland’s biological streams survey(Wolf).

Participants also found that socio-economic data was often difficult to obtain or use.This included information on land ownership and stewardship (especially down to the plat)(Docherty, Nigh); voter or conservation organization membership patterns by zip code (Nigh);and specific infrastructure information (e.g., location of facilities such as saw mills) (Nigh).

Some states, such as New Hampshire, still lack general data on wildlife species andhabitat and lack systematic inventories or long-term monitoring of biodiversity (Cook). Oregonexperienced difficulty in obtaining data on at-risk species (species not yet listed on state orfederal endangered/threatened lists) and historic vegetation patterns (Vickerman). Althoughinformation on areas that are critical to protect often exists, information on areas that are not at-risk but regionally significant or valuable is less available (Nigh).

There currently is inadequate information on non-native invasive species, includinginformation on dispersal routes and pathways by which these species move, areas vulnerable tofuture invasions, and detection and control strategies (Holtz).

The Executive Director of the Secretariat for Conservation Biology in Hawaiiemphasized the overall need for more scientific information. In particular, there is a need forbetter information to help understand the role of evolution in the diversification and adaptation ofplants and animals. This is especially important in island ecosystems and increasingly morerelevant to fragmented islands of habitats found throughout the U.S. (Kaneshiro).

Issues to ConsiderWhen developing a statewide or regional biodiversity assessment, there are obvious

benefits to prioritizing areas for conservation. However, simply identifying key habitats forconservation may be sufficient. Oregon chose not to prioritize areas for protection to encourageconservation partners (i.e., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state DNR, The NatureConservancy) to identify their own conservation priorities (Vickerman).

In several states, more than one assessment of biodiversity has been conducted.Although these assessments may have different goals (e.g., greenway planning, evaluatinglandscape connectivity, guiding land acquisition and management), having one consolidatedeffort and one map may prove beneficial. Having a single plan, rather than multiple competingplans, would help build trust in its scientific validity and would facilitate efforts to communicateconservation messages to the public (Klemens).

13

STRATEGIES FOR PROVIDING BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION TO DECISION-MAKERS

Developing biodiversity information that is accessible to and usable by decision-makersis a critical step in improving the likelihood that biodiversity concerns will be factored into statedecision-making that affects plants, animals, and ecosystems (e.g., local land use planning andzoning, transportation planning). However, unless an effective strategy for disseminating thisinformation is developed, the data will fail to influence the decision-making process. Merelysending out a report or providing people with maps often fails to have the desired impact. Aneffective outreach strategy must take into consideration the target audience, the format in whichthe information is provided, and whether the target audience is equipped to use and interpret theinformation.

Effective StrategiesSymposium participants discussed several different strategies they have developed and

obstacles they have faced in providing biodiversity data to decision-makers.

Identifying the audienceThe first step in determining a dissemination strategy is to identify the target audience.

The Metropolitan Conservation Alliance has defined as its target audience individuals who arecatalysts for change. Attempts to reach “communities” usually require reaching out to localofficials and decision-makers (Klemens). Massachusetts has focused on educating andengaging public policy-makers (Durand).

Designing the productsBiodiversity information must be tailored to meet the needs of the target audience. The

Oregon Biodiversity Project found that making biodiversity information understandable andvisually compelling is essential to enticing decision-makers to take the first step in utilizing it(Vickerman).

In New York State, the Environmental Law Institute conducted a “needs assessment” todetermine what biodiversity information is currently being used by state decision-makers, itsperceived adequacies, and whether additional information is needed. The intervieweesexpressed the need for several different types of information, including:

• Site-specific information• Information on multiple scales• Socio-economic information combined with biodiversity information• Aquatic biodiversity information

14

• Information on landscape-level processes• Trend data• Training on how to use and interpret biodiversity information (Johnson)

Defending the dataBiodiversity information must be scientifically valid and undergo peer review (Kautz,

Niles). This is particularly vital if the data could be used in a regulatory context or could besubject to legal challenge.

Obstacles to Delivering Biodiversity InformationSymposium participants identified several obstacles to getting biodiversity information

into the hands of decision-makers. In Illinois, the Department of Natural Resources found thatexisting “delivery systems,” including systems for disseminating biodiversity information andproviding technical assistance, need to be improved (Hubbell).

One clear goal of several biodiversity efforts is to provide biodiversity information tolocal governments in an effort to influence decisions about land use planning and zoning.However, biodiversity initiatives that have attempted to work with local governments have foundit to be labor and personnel intensive (Docherty, Klemens, Niles, Vickerman). Wisconsinprovides smart growth planning grants to local governments but has had difficulty developing asystem for providing biodiversity information to local governments (Holtz). In Delaware,engaging local governments has been a challenge because they often lack resources and staff atthis level (DiPasquale). For biodiversity initiatives to interact successfully with localgovernments, natural resource professionals must make a sustained commitment to establishlong-term, one-on-one relationships with local decision-makers (Klemens, Vickerman). Localgovernments not only need access to appropriate biodiversity information, but also technicalassistance to help guide their use of the information (DiPasquale).

Due to fear of litigation, local officials often display resistance to changing the status quoor venturing away from common practices. Local officials generally opt to stick to the tried andtrue rather than testing more innovative approaches, such as planning on a regional scale ordeveloping biodiversity-sensitive comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. Localities needencouragement and support to try novel approaches (Klemens). The Oregon BiodiversityProject found that convincing decision-makers that using biodiversity information will help avoidlawsuits encouraged them to use the information. The project found that it was essential towork with decision-makers to minimize the penalties and maximize the benefits of usingbiological information (Vickerman).

15

CREATING THE DEMAND FOR BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION

Developing the right types of biodiversity information and establishing appropriatedelivery mechanisms are half the battle. An effective biodiversity strategy must also create ademand for ecological information.

Decision-makers need requirements or incentives to use biodiversity information. Ifthey perceive that they have a legal mandate to analyze the effects of their decisions onbiodiversity, they are more likely to use biodiversity information. The New York state needsassessment found that decision-makers’ interpretation of legal mandates is often narrow but canbe broadened to require the use of biodiversity information (Johnson).

To institutionalize the use of biodiversity information, each state should adopt a policystatement that commits it to biodiversity conservation (Vickerman). Short of adopting new legaltools, there may be ample legal mandates in a variety of existing state and local laws (e.g., littleNEPAs, ditch laws, lake protection acts, state planning statutes) that, if interpreted creatively,create such a mandate (McElfish, Wilkinson).

However, the regulatory process can only drive demand for biodiversity data so far.The value of using biodiversity data increases when decision-makers perceive tangible benefits.A reward may come in the form of saving time and money (Stein), averting legal challenges(Klemens, Stein, Vickerman), or providing public benefits (Durand, McGregor).

Encouraging the Use of Information and Providing SupportInterest in biodiversity information must be marketed and demand for the information

must be institutionalized (Vickerman). It should not be assumed that if biodiversity information isavailable and even tailored to local and state decision-makers (e.g., land use planners) that it willbe utilized. Fostering an educated constituency (through outreach, education, and publicity) willlead citizens to demand that their locally elected officials and agency representatives factorbiodiversity into their decision-making (Durand, Klemens). In New Jersey, the LandscapeProject has developed a network of volunteers to reach out to communities. That effort hasfound that to influence planners, local citizens need to be involved in dissemination and support(Niles). In Massachusetts, the biodiversity initiative is using circuit riders to assist conservationcommissions in protecting biodiversity (McGregor).

If demand for biodiversity information is established, it is important that users are able toturn to one permanent source. This entity should be able to provide technical support andoutreach to local governments (Johnson, Vickerman, Wilkinson).

16

Issues to ConsiderSeveral issues related to the demand for biodiversity information were identified during

the symposium. Many of these issues have direct consequences for the on-the-ground successof state and regional biodiversity efforts.

Influencing local land use decisionsTo best conserve biodiversity, the role of state and regional government in land use

planning must increase (Cook). Because the scale at which most local governments conductplanning is too small to have a significant effect on conservation, states must find opportunities toencourage greater regional planning. At the same time, it is important to provide information tolocal governments that enables them to take actions consistent with adjacent communities toprotect biologically significant areas.

Using public land acquisition programsNationwide, public land acquisition programs are growing in number and size. Over the

past decade, each election has brought land acquisition programs to new states and funding toexisting state programs. However, these public land acquisition programs often do not takebiodiversity into account when prioritizing lands. For example, Florida’s acquisition program ischanging to give greater weight to purchasing land for recreational purposes (Kautz). Too often,these programs are opportunistic in making their land acquisition decisions and fail to identifypriority sites for biodiversity protection (Cook). Ohio has recently authorized a $200 millionbond for the acquisition of land and conservation easements, but under current law there is nobasis to administer this program in a way that conserves biodiversity (Sedam).

A related issue is securing permanent, stable sources of funding for land protection andconservation of non-game wildlife species and plants. To the extent possible, state biodiversityefforts should seek support for securing an adequate and permanent source of federal and statefunding for land protection programs, such as the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (Cook).14

With permanent, stable funding sources, demand for reliable biodiversity information will likelyfollow – particularly if a state conservation strategy is in place (Figg).

Working with the mediaState and regional biodiversity efforts have a lot to gain from building successful media

outreach strategies. The use of biodiversity information by the media helps drive publiceducation and fosters interest by decision-makers. However, these efforts must develop acoordinated approach and message when dealing with the press (Durand). In addition, mediaefforts must be designed to complement grassroots education efforts (Sullivan).

17

Several states noted that the media often release news pieces that are limited in theiraccuracy and level of detail. In contrast, media outreach by Chicago Wilderness hassuccessfully garnered significant media attention that is both technical and positive (Sullivan). InMissouri, the Grasslands Coalition held a walk across the state to draw attention to the need toprotect and restore threatened grassland ecosystems. A targeted media campaign was built intothe effort (Nigh).

The Biodiversity Project, a non-profit organization, is an excellent source of informationfor state and regional biodiversity efforts. The organization develops strategies and practices forcommunication and public education (see Appendix G).

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Federal agencies, state agencies, local and national conservation organizations,philanthropic institutions and others can do a great deal to promote the development of statebiodiversity efforts and to support and build upon the successes of existing ones. Therecommendations could be tackled by individual agencies or organizations, or could be analyzedby a consortium of groups interested in advancing this innovative approach to conservation.

Successful Elements of a State Biodiversity Effort: Structure and ProcessSymposium participants identified several components of a successful statewide

biodiversity effort that should be considered. There was general consensus among participantsthat these efforts should:

• Secure support from high-level officials from the outset• Include a broad range of stakeholders early in the process, including locally elected

officials• Appoint or hire a full- or part-time coordinator or facilitator to organize meetings• Establish clear, measurable goals to guide the initiative• Develop a method for monitoring on-the-ground progress• Develop an education and outreach campaign

• Develop a strategy for reaching private landowners• Consider a citizen science component

• Develop a strategy for communicating to the press• Focus on tangible results early and throughout the project• Develop a strategy for deflecting private property rights concerns

• Consider using local people to build support• Establish a mechanism for delivering biodiversity information to target audiences (e.g.,

land use planners, local governments)

18

State Biodiversity Assessment MethodologiesBiodiversity assessment methodologies, or GIS-based efforts designed to prioritize

conservation efforts in a state or region, take many different forms (see Appendix B). Asidefrom the technical aspects of designing such a program (i.e., what data sets to utilize, criteria forselecting priority areas), there are several issues that participants identified as important:

• Before developing information products, survey the array of potential users to determinetheir information needs

• Secure support from state agencies to ensure that results will be incorporated into stateinitiatives, such as land acquisition programs, grant programs, and public landmanagement decision-making

• Adopt a singular map for each state. Where multiple assessments are developed toserve different goals, develop a singular map that will be presented to the public.Biodiversity Information NeedsIndividuals who participated in developing biodiversity assessment tools identified the

following key areas where sufficient data for analyzing status, trends, and opportunities forconserving biodiversity are lacking:

• Data sets of aquatic biodiversity• Data sets of socio-economic information• Mechanisms for making information on at-risk species more accessible to statewide and

regional biodiversity efforts (i.e., Natural Heritage data)• Information on the distribution and dispersal pathways of non-native invasive species,

areas vulnerable to future invasions, and detection and control strategies• Data that are usable at the county level but that are compatible/consistent statewide

Federal agencies, state agencies, or private organizations should explore ways toaddress these biodiversity data needs.

Biodiversity Information Delivery MechanismsFederal agencies, state agencies, and/or private organizations should conduct additional

research on effective mechanisms for delivering biodiversity information to key decision-makers.The following audiences should be considered and interviewed before delivery mechanisms aredeveloped:

• Local governments• State agencies, for a variety of purposes, including land acquisition, land management,

grant programs, regulatory decision-making, transportation planning, and facility siting• Private conservation organizations, including land trusts• Federal agencies

19

• Private sector companies, including those who have large landholdings, such as utilityand timber companies

• Private citizens for educational purposes

State agencies or state-based private organizations should establish permanentclearinghouses for biodiversity information. These entities should be equipped to providetechnical support and outreach to local governments and other potential users of biodiversityinformation in the state.

Creating Demand for Biodiversity InformationFederal agencies, state agencies, and private organizations should conduct additional

research on how to stimulate sustained demand for biodiversity information from a variety ofaudiences. Biodiversity information must be marketed both externally and within state agencies.To create demand, state biodiversity initiatives, working with state agencies and others, shouldtake the following actions:

• Create new or interpret existing regulatory authorities to require the use of biodiversityinformation

• Develop incentives for agencies, organizations, and individuals to utilize biodiversityinformation

• Market the benefits of using biodiversity information, such as saving time, funds, orminimizing the potential for legal conflict

• Create incentives to encourage municipalities to do more regional planning

Actions for Congress and State LegislaturesSymposium participants identified several actions that state legislatures and Congress

can take to help support efforts to protect and restore biodiversity at the state level:• Secure permanent, stable sources of funding for land acquisition, conservation of non-

game wildlife species and plants, and management of public lands• Develop new incentive programs or tailor existing programs that promote habitat

conservation on private lands• Provide legal standing for state biodiversity efforts• Institute biodiversity mandates to commit states to biodiversity conservation• Provide funding for the establishment of biodiversity clearinghouses in each state

Actions for State AgenciesSymposium participants identified several actions that state agencies can take to help

support efforts to protect and restore biodiversity:• Establish a central clearinghouse for biodiversity information• Create state biological survey programs• Allow greater access to biodiversity information• Provide technical support to private landowners and local governments• Market biodiversity within the state agencies

20

• Secure permanent, stable sources of funding for land acquisition, conservation of non-game wildlife species and plants, and management of public lands

• Adopt new policies or utilize existing policies to address invasive species• Incorporate biodiversity considerations into state open space acquisition programs (i.e.,

use data from biodiversity assessments or statewide conservation plans)• Develop new incentive programs that promote habitat and species conservation on

private lands• Tailor existing incentive programs, such as Farm Bill programs, to conserve priority

areas identified by a statewide conservation plan• Work with partner agencies and the governor’s office to establish a memorandum of

understanding or executive order that creates a state biodiversity effort

Actions for Philanthropic InstitutionsSymposium participants identified several actions that private philanthropic institutions

can take to help support efforts to protect and restore biodiversity at the state level:• Support collaborative statewide and regional biodiversity conservation efforts• Provide multi-year grants to allow for absorption of new programs over time• Support efforts to develop new biodiversity information, disseminate that information,

and create demand for the information• Foster exchange of information and networking opportunities for groups working on

biodiversity conservation efforts across the country

21

ENDNOTES1 An agenda from the symposium, recordings of the presentations, and much of the presentation materials,are available online at www.eli.org (click on “Seminars”).2 Points made by speakers and participants are summarized and attributed where appropriate by a parentheti-cal citation of the person’s surname.3 Stein, Bruce A., Lynn S. Kutner, and Jonathan S. Adams, Eds. 2000. Precious Heritage: The Status ofBiodiversity in the United States. Oxford University Press. P. 101.4 Stein, Bruce A., Lynn S. Kutner, and Jonathan S. Adams, Eds. 2000. Precious Heritage: The Status ofBiodiversity in the United States. Oxford University Press. P. 101.5 Stein, Bruce A., Lynn S. Kutner, and Jonathan S. Adams, Eds. 2000. Precious Heritage: The Status ofBiodiversity in the United States. Oxford University Press. P. 242.6 Bennett, Jessica. July/August 1998. State Biodiversity Planning. The Environmental Forum. V.15, No. 4:19-27. Environmental Law Institute: Washington, DC.

7 Bardach, E. 1998. Getting Agencies to Work Together: The Practice and Theory of Managerial Craftsman-ship. Washington D.C: The Brookings Institute.8 Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multi-Party Problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.9 Gray, B. 1985. Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human Relations. 38(10): 911-926.10 Fisher, R. and Ury, W. 1981. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. New York, NewYork: Penguin Books Ltd.11 Yosie, T. and T. Herbst. 1998. Using Stakeholder Process in Environmental Decision-Making: AnEvaluation of Lessons Learned, Key Issues, and Future Challenges. Unpublished.12 Weber, T. and Wolf, J. 2000. Maryland’s green infrastructure – using landscape assessment tools toidentify a regional conservation strategy. Environmental Assessment. 63:265-277.13 Margerum, R. 1999. Integrated environmental management: the foundations for successful practice.Environmental Management. 24(2): 151-166.14 For additional information on CARA, please see http://www.teaming.com/

22

APPENDIX ASTATE PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS

23

CALIFORNIA BIODIVERSITY COUNCILhttp://www.ceres.ca.gov/biodiversity/The California Biodiversity Council consists of federal and state agency representatives, county supervisors,and city council members within California who work cooperatively to promote better stewardship of theState’s natural resources. The Council is an outgrowth of concern by natural resource managers and locallyelected officials that existing conservation regulations and measures were not working – they were tooexpensive, often duplicative and were developed without local involvement, making them sometimesunrealistic, and simply inadequate to protect California’s natural diversity.The Council was created in September 1991 with the development and signing of the California Agreementon Biological Diversity. The Agreement is the most explicit recognition to date, in California as well as in therest of the United States, of the need to coordinate natural resource and land use planning and managementactivities across jurisdictions to the watershed and regional level. It seeks to effectively involve landownersand users, government agencies, and locally elected leaders in the resolution of issues associated witheconomic development and resource conservation and to develop active partnerships among these interests formanaging the State’s natural resources. It also seeks to promote the development of conservation andmanagement strategies that reflect the concerns and economic needs of local residents, tailoring conservationprograms to these needs for maximum effectiveness.As interest in dealing more comprehensively with issues of habitat loss, economic stability, and water qualityhas risen across the State, the Biodiversity Council has helped focus this interest through more effectivecooperation between state and federal agencies and local government. This is accomplished at Councilmeetings that are held quarterly in different areas of the State. In conjunction with these meetings, the Counciloften sponsors Local Biodiversity Forums for community leaders, local residents, and special interest groups todescribe, discuss, and begin to resolve issues of local and regional interest or concern. Several years ago, theCouncil, representatives of the Regional Council of Rural Counties, and the regional county supervisorassociations in the Sierra Nevada region, initiated a series of Regional Leadership Forums designed to improverelations between state and federal agencies and local government.The Council has been very active in promoting greater coordination among governmental agencies, academicinstitutes, and other entities for scientific research and data collection and in increasing public access to thisinformation. The California Environmental Resources Evaluation System (CERES) is an example of onesuch effort. It is an information system designed to facilitate access to a variety of automated data describingCalifornia’s rich and diverse environments. The Council has also worked with local residents in the KlamathProvince, located in the northwestern portion of the State, and the Sierra Nevada to develop geographicinformation systems (GIS) to assist area residents collect, store, and analyze information for watershedrestoration work and other planning and conservation efforts. More recently, the Council initiated theCalifornia Continuing Resource Investment Strategy (CCRISP). Based in part on the Oregon BiodiversityProject, this project will assess the State’s natural resources and develop a comprehensive strategy to guideCalifornia’s investments in resource protection in the 21st century.

24

CHICAGO WILDERNESShttp://www.chicagowilderness.org/Chicago Wilderness is a “regional nature reserve,” comprising hundreds of natural areas totaling more than200,000 acres in the metropolitan region. It is a globally significant concentration of rare naturalcommunities – the woodlands, forests, prairies, streams and wetlands – found throughout the region. TheChicago Wilderness region encompasses the crescent of land around southern Lake Michigan, includingparts of southeastern Wisconsin, northeastern Illinois and northwest Indiana.Chicago Wilderness is also an unprecedented partnership of 124 public and private organizations (includingfederal and state agencies, county and local governments, and non-governmental scientific andenvironmental organizations) that have pledged to work in concert to protect these rare natural communitiesand to restore them to long-term viability.What does Chicago Wilderness want to accomplish?The member organizations, and thousands of volunteers, pool their resources and expertise to mosteffectively protect, manage, and restore the natural heritage of the central midwestern region.Key goals include:

• Producing of the region’s first comprehensive Biodiversity Recovery Plan (1999);• Documenting of the region’s varied natural communities and species in Chicago Wilderness: An

Atlas of Biodiversity (1997);• Restoring of natural communities on public and private lands;• Preventing of the ongoing loss of critical habitat and promoting careful development; and• Offering opportunities for citizens to become involved in local biodiversity conservation.

How does Chicago Wilderness function?Each member organization has been active in local conservation efforts and has signed a memorandum ofunderstanding pledging its commitment to Chicago Wilderness goals. The members are organized under anumbrella group called the Chicago Region Biodiversity Council, which directs the initiative and its programs.The Council, with a steering committee of executives and four teams, provides the organizational structurefor Chicago Wilderness. The teams are made up of staff from the member organizations in: 1) science, 2)land management, 3) education and communication, and 4) sustainable development.Financial support for Chicago Wilderness is provided by the member organizations, as well as throughadditional private and local, state, and federal grants. Current funders include the U.S. Department ofAgriculture Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Illinois Department of Natural Resource’sC2000 program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Grand Victoria Foundation. Memberorganizations work together to develop and submit projects for review. In order to receive Councilendorsement, each project must address a critical conservation need, addressed in the key goals of theinitiative. Since its launch in April 1996, Chicago Wilderness has funded more than 140 collaborativeprojects.

25

DELAWARE BIODIVERSITY INITIATIVEhttp://www.dnrec.state.de.us/DNREC2000/Admin/Biodiversity/index.htmDelaware’s living resources are facing multiple threats from habitat alteration, loss, and destruction fromdevelopment and poor land use planning; the introduction and proliferation of exotic and invasive species;and pollution and contamination. Delaware has lost a higher percentage of plants species than any otherstate. Non-native species represent 25 percent of the State’s known flora, and by the mid 1980’s about 54percent of the State’s original wetland acreage had been lost. In recognition of these threats and trends,various environmental groups, along with the state, county, and federal governments, began to workcooperatively to protect Delaware’s remaining natural heritage and to work toward restoring damaged andaltered ecosystems.The Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, the Delaware Nature Society, and TheNature Conservancy’s Delaware Field Office commissioned the Environmental Law Institute to conduct astudy of the laws, regulations, policies, and programs in the State that either aid or hinder the conservationof biological diversity and to make recommendations. A group of 40 knowledgeable people from bothprivate and public sectors were brought together in a workshop in June 1998 to launch the project.In December 1999, ELI issued its report, “Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools forBiodiversity Conservation,” which analyzes status and trends in Delaware’s biological diversity, outlinesrecommendations for how the State’s laws and policies could more effectively protect biodiversity, andgives direction for developing a comprehensive strategy. Many of the specific recommendations forimproving species protection do not involve new laws or regulations. In most cases, the tools neededalready exist, and administrative decisions to refocus or reprioritize programs, making full use of existingauthorities or expanding private conservation efforts, will result in significant progress in protecting andrestoring Delaware’s biological diversity.These recommendations were presented to the Cabinet Committee on State Planning Issues in May 2000.At the committee’s request, a Biodiversity Implementation Strategy Workgroup (BISWG) was formed,consisting of leaders in Delaware’s state and county government and the environmental community. BISWGwas charged with defining overall goals for biodiversity conservation in the State and prioritizing the report’srecommendations. Their goal is to develop an implementation strategy for advancing the State’s efforts inbiodiversity protection and restoration to be presented to the Executive Committee for consideration andendorsement.The BISWG began meeting in August 2000. The group has developed statewide goals and objectives,drafted 19 key priority recommendations complete with rationale for implementation, and coordinated astatewide symposium, Protecting Delaware’s Living Resources: Building a Statewide Strategy, whichwas held on February 20, 2001. The symposium was designed to inform and solicit feedback from keydecision-makers across the State on the proposed recommendations to be implemented to protectDelaware’s Natural Heritage.The next steps in Delaware’s initiative involve incorporating feedback from these decision-makers byconvening focus groups after the symposium. From this feedback, the BISWG will develop a statewideImplementation Strategy to present to the Executive Committee in May 2001.

26

FLORIDA’S CLOSING THE GAPS PROJECTIn 1990, the Office of Environmental Services of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commissioninitiated a project designed to identify Florida lands that should be protected to meet the minimum long-termconservation needs of most components of Florida’s biodiversity. Geographic information systemstechnology was used to develop maps of potential habitats for 54 focal/indicator species of wildlife bycombining information on known occurrences, range in Florida, and habitat requirements with a Landsat-based vegetation map of the State. Population viability modeling was used to estimate the minimum sizes ofpopulations that should be protected, and they concluded that protecting 10 populations of 200 breedingindividuals would be a reasonable population goal for providing long-term protection for most species. TheOffice evaluated the 54 focal species for current protection status on public lands by overlaying public landboundaries on potential habitat maps, tabulating the area of potential habitat on each parcel of public land,using density information to estimate population size on each parcel, and determining which species alreadyhave 10 populations of 200 breeding individuals on public land. Of the 54 focal species, 40 were notadequately protected using this criterion.Strategic habitats were located for the 40 inadequately protected species by identifying privately ownedlands that, in concert with public lands, would include enough habitat to meet the conservation planning goal.For some species (e.g., Florida panther, Florida black bear) there is not enough land remaining in Florida tosupport multiple viable populations. The office identified privately owned lands that would materiallyenhance survival potential if protected. Because their set of focal species did not completely protect allcomponents of Florida’s biological diversity, the Office also mapped known examples of four rare naturalcommunities and 105 globally rare plants as strategic habitats. Strategic habitats were identified so as toprotect as many species as possible, meet minimum conservation needs of rare and imperiled species, andinclude landscape linkages and wildlife corridors wherever feasible.The results of these efforts were published in 1994 in an agency report titled, “Closing the Gaps in Florida’sWildlife Habitat Conservation System.” Since 1994, this information has been used with varying degrees ofsuccess in five major types of conservation initiatives in Florida: public land acquisition, land use planning,development, regulation, private landowner incentives, and public land management. Because the dataappearing in “Closing the Gaps” are now about 10 years old, the agency is currently in the process ofupdating the information. They are using 1996-97 Landsat imagery to perform a statewide changedetection analysis that will be used to update the vegetation map. Then, they will revise their conservationpriorities by: 1) re-running all of their species models to determine what habitats have been lost over the 10-year period; 2) determining what habitats have been protected by public ownership; 3) testing to see howspecies security has changed with respect to their planning goal of 10 populations of 200 individuals; and 4)identifying new strategic habitats as appropriate. The agency expects the update to be completed by themiddle of 2002.

27

FLORIDA’S ECOLOGICAL NETWORK PROJECThttp://www.geoplan.ufl.edu/projects/greenways/greenwayindex.htmlThe University of Florida recently completed an analysis of potential ecological connectivity to identify areaswith priority conservation significance and landscape linkages as part of a State of Florida program calledGreenways. The Florida Greenways Program started in1991 as a combined effort of 1000 Friends ofFlorida and the Conservation Fund. They convinced Governor Lawton Chiles to appoint the FloridaGreenways Commission in 1992, which started an eight-year state government-sponsored process toidentify ecological and recreational greenway opportunities across the State and to develop animplementation plan. The University of Florida worked with the Florida Department of EnvironmentalProtection in these efforts with funding from the Florida Department of Transportation.The identification of a statewide Ecological Greenways Network is the latest step in the State’s design andprotection of a reserve system obtained through aggressive land acquisition program. The goal of this effortwas to use a regional landscape approach to design an ecologically functional Statewide Greenways Systemthat:

1. Conserves critical elements of Florida’s native ecosystems and landscapes;2. Restores and maintains essential connectivity among diverse native ecological systems and

processes;3. Facilitates the ability of these ecosystems and landscapes to function as dynamic systems; and4. Maintains the evolutionary potential of the biota of these ecosystems and landscapes to adapt to

future environmental changes.The Statewide Greenways System used GIS to develop a decision support model that utilized land use dataand information on significant ecological areas, including habitats for target species, priority ecologicalcommunities, wetlands, roadless areas, floodplains, and important aquatic systems, to identify larger areas ofecological priority and potential ecological linkages.The result of this process, the Ecological Network, includes approximately half the State’s area, with overhalf of this network already in conservation lands or public domain water. This network could provide alinked statewide reserve system containing most of each major ecological community and most known rarespecies. Although the Ecological Network represents significant progress toward a more integratedapproach to biodiversity conservation in Florida, further analysis is needed to 1) ensure that needs of wide-ranging species, such as the Florida panther and Florida black bear, are addressed; 2) identify otherbiodiversity elements not well represented; and 3) designate a system of cores and buffers that will addressmanagement issues. Reserve design is an iterative process, and future plans need to include results of theFlorida GAP analysis project and ongoing habitat loss.A prioritization study that identifies the most critical landscape linkages of the Ecological Network wasrecently finished. These priorities are currently being incorporated into the goals for Florida’s new ten-yearland acquisition program called Florida Forever. A similar analysis is also being conducted for EPA Region4 to identify a region-wide Southeastern Ecological Framework and to provide the data and model resultsfor planning efforts at the local, state, and regional scales.

28

HAWAII CONSERVATION BIOLOGY INITIATIVEhttp://www2.hawaii.edu/scb/about.htmIn recognition of the importance of Hawaii’s unique native species and ecosystems and the urgent need fortheir protection and management, the Hawaii Conservation Biology Initiative (HCBI) was established in1988 “to encourage conservation-related research in Hawaii to guide preserve design and long-termstewardship, and to disseminate this conservation expertise world-wide.” The goals of the HCBI were to:1) create and maintain a prioritized agenda of conservation biology research questions to guide researchefforts and funding in Hawaii; 2) increase private, state, and federal support for high-priority conservationresearch in Hawaii through a sustainable research grants program and effective interagency collaboration;3) establish a system of biological field stations in Hawaii to support priority conservation research incurrently protected natural areas, representing a broad range of native ecosystems and islands; 4) explorethe opportunity to establish a conservation biology center in Hawaii; and 5) develop an organization capableof accomplishing the goals of HCBI and continuing this work into the future.By 1993, many of the goals and objectives of the HCBI had been accomplished and the Secretariat forConservation Biology (SCB) was established to continue the initiatives of the HCBI. State (Hawaii Divisionof Forestry and Wildlife; University of Hawaii-Center for Conservation Research and Training) and Federal(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Forest Service; USGS Biological Resources Division; U.S. NationalPark Service; the East-West Center) agencies, and private non-profit organizations (The NatureConservancy of Hawaii; Bishop Museum; the Peregrine Fund) have joined in partnership “to promoteeffective, long-term management of Hawaii’s native ecosystems through a collaborative research and trainingeffort among land managers, scientists and educators.”In addition to goals one and two of the HCBI, the SCB’s goals are to communicate conservation science tonatural resource managers and to increase public awareness as to the importance of conserving andmanaging Hawaii’s biological diversity.The activities of the SCB include:

• an annual Hawaii Conservation Conference, which draws more than 400 participants from thePacific Region;

• the Hawaii Conservation Forum, which brings together more than 40 organizational participants tocollectively identify top-priority conservation issues and establish multi-agency working groups todevelop and implement near-term action plans;

• the Hawaii-New Zealand Conservation Biology Exchange Program, which encourages technicalcooperation in addressing common issues faced by managers and researchers in both islandecosystems;

• support services to Natural Resource Managers by providing training workshops, such as in naturalresource monitoring and alien plant control methods, and other publications in the form of pictorialguides of alien plant and insect species, etc.;

• grants program to support high-priority research related to management needs; and• a public education/awareness program to increase public understanding and support for the

conservation and management of Hawaii’s unique biological diversity.

29

ILLINOIS C2000 ECOSYSTEMS PROGRAMhttp://dnr.state.il.us/orep/c2000/The Illinois Ecosystems Program is funded through Conservation 2000 (C2000), a comprehensive long-term approach to protecting and managing Illinois’ natural resources. The Ecosystems Program is avoluntary, broad-based incentive program. It integrates the interests and participation of local communitiesand private, public, and corporate landowners to enhance and protect watersheds through ecosystem-based management. Program assistance is available to all those located within an Ecosystem PartnershipArea. The Ecosystems Program provides four types of support to Ecosystem Partnerships: assessment andmonitoring; integrated technical assistance; ecosystem project, planning, and support grants; and ecosysteminterpretation and education.Ecosystem Partnerships are coalitions of local stakeholders – private landowners, businesses, scientists,environmental organizations, recreational enthusiasts, and policy makers. They are united by a commoninterest in the natural resources of their area’s watershed. Partnership designation brings financial andtechnical support, which is integral in addressing watershed concerns.Ecosystem Administrators, regional program staff, strengthen Ecosystem Partnerships by participating inmeetings, and serving as a liaison between the Partnerships and IDNR staff. They maintain the focus ofPartnership goals, and encourage the group to utilize all of the available support the Department offers. TheEcosystems Program provides detailed natural, economic, and cultural resource assessments to designatedpartnerships. The assessments include pre-settlement ecology and regional geology. Monitoring is alsoprovided for the Ecosystem Partnership area on a five-year basis.Ecosystem Administrators assist Ecosystem Partnerships in promotion, as well as offer several differenttypes of watershed education programs. They also provide guidance in developing and coordinatingeducational events. Presentations about the Ecosystems Program and watershed education are readilyavailable for all individuals, from small children to retired citizens.Ecosystem Project Grants are submitted and ranked by Ecosystem Partnerships to enhance theirwatershed. These annual grants are competitively awarded in the fall. Project categories include: Habitat –projects restore or enhance the existing landscape, such as reforestation, prairie establishment, or riparianrestoration; Capital – projects provide funding to purchase conservation easements or acquire land for thepurpose of habitat protection and restoration; Outreach – projects provide the public with resourcemanagement assistance, technical advice, or educational support; Research – projects are scientificallyoriented to the collection and analysis of data for the purpose of expanding environmental knowledge; andResource economics – projects use the natural resources of an area to create an economic benefit to thesurrounding community.Each designated Ecosystem Partnership is eligible for a Phase I Planning Grant up to $10,000 for initialwatershed planning. Further Phase II planning assistance may also be available. Support Grants forEcosystem Partnerships are available biennially. Funds are used for administrative, contractual, operational,and equipment expenses.

30

INDIANA BIODIVERSITY INITIATIVEhttp://www.indianabiodiversity.orgThe goal of the Indiana Biodiversity Initiative (IBI), organized in 1996, is to provide the communities ofIndiana with educational opportunities and up-to-date information to coordinate local biodiversityconservation efforts. IBI is comprised of a Steering Committee, a Conservation and Restoration Team, anEducation Team, a Coordination Team, and an Administrative Team. The Steering Committee providesleadership and guidance. Members include representatives from state and federal agencies, non-profitorganizations, university faculty, and the business and agricultural communities.In coordination with ELI, a biodiversity workshop was held in Indianapolis in 1997. It brought togethernational, state, and local leaders from the public and private sectors. The workshop was organized toengage leaders at various levels in Indiana in order to advance their understanding of biodiversity threats,opportunities, and tools. More than 200 individuals attended the conference.The Conservation and Restoration Team (CRT) has undertaken a biodiversity assessment of the entireState, based on the State’s natural regions. These regional assessments seek to assess the status ofbiodiversity, identify factors affecting biodiversity, and prioritize opportunities for restoration and protection.The CRT is currently completing the first regional assessment for the Grand Prairie Region and anticipatescompleting all assessments by January of 2002. The findings of each regional assessment will be publishedon the Internet and compiled into a statewide conservation strategy to be published in 2002. The CRT isalso working with the Education Team to develop a web site for the Initiative.The Education Team is charged with raising the awareness and understanding of Indiana’s biodiversityamong its citizens. The Education Team is currently working on three major projects: a public relationscampaign, a school education program, and NatureMapping. As part of the public relations campaign, apress kit was released in 1999 and a brochure and traveling exhibit were designed in 2000. The EducationTeam is beginning a cooperative venture with World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to offer biodiversity trainingworkshops for middle school teachers and to adapt WWF’s Biodiversity Basics curriculum for Indiana’shabitats and species. NatureMapping is an interactive program designed to offer Indiana citizens anopportunity to collect scientific information and to report the results of wildlife inventories. This informationis stored in a central database. In 2000, IBI hired a part-time NatureMapping coordinator who hasfacilitated 13 workshops around the State. Spring workshops are currently being scheduled.IBI has been able to pursue and achieve many of its goals through funding from a variety of sources,including private foundations, conservation organizations, corporations, and state government. Funding in1996 and 1997 from the Moriah Fund, Eli Lilly Corporation, Indiana Department of Natural Resources,The Nature Conservancy/Indiana Field Office, Indianapolis Power and Light Company, CinergyCorporation, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and Legacy Fund enabled IBI to initiate severalprojects. Funding in 1999 from Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust and Central Indiana CommunityFoundation have enabled IBI to progress on these projects, including adding staff. Additional donations ofGIS hardware and software came from Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs andESRI.

31

KENTUCKY BIODIVERSITY COUNCILhttp://www.nr.state.ky.us/nrepc/dnr/biodiverse/links.htmIn 1994, Kentucky Governor Brereton Jones established the Kentucky Biodiversity Task Force throughExecutive Order. He appointed a diverse group of 34 Kentuckians to serve on the Task Force. The groupwas directed to study the status of biodiversity in Kentucky and to develop recommendations for futureaction. In its final report, Kentucky Alive, the Task Force recommended that the Governor establish aBiodiversity Council to continue to conserve and sustain biological diversity through the following methods:

• Develop a statewide biodiversity policy;• Develop a coordinated inventory of all levels of biodiversity and database of information;• Develop biodiversity management plans and demonstration areas for State lands;• Develop and coordinate formal and informal educational programs;• Create one official State list of rare, threatened, and endangered species;• Identify and establish partnerships among government agencies, universities, non-governmental

organizations, and individuals; and• Identify, develop, and promote incentives, awards, and technical assistance programs for private

landowners.In December 1995, Governor Jones established the Kentucky Biodiversity Council through anotherExecutive Order and appointed to it representatives of the state agencies that manage lands (forestry, naturepreserves, fish and wildlife, parks, highway department). Other members of the Council representeducational and science interests. The Governor appointed Jeff Hohman as the first Chair of the Council, aposition to be filled by a person “knowledgeable of and committed to conserving Kentucky’s biodiversity,”but not an employee of state government.The Council meets several times each year to discuss biodiversity protection efforts and issues. Membersshare their experiences and have formed several partnerships to address common issues. The Council hasno dedicated funding, but has managed to attract contributions that have been distributed as grants tosupport efforts such as exotics control research, a herbarium, and a science teacher’s guide to biodiversityin Kentucky.The Council has worked with the Kentucky Academy of Science to establish an agency to coordinateinventory efforts and to preserve natural history collections. The effort has been incorporated into a plannedKentucky Natural History Museum. Legislation establishing a museum board and planning committee easilypassed in the last legislative session.The Council has supported efforts by other groups to preserve and protect biodiversity. These importantefforts include the purchase of mining and logging rights; a master plan for environmental education inKentucky; private lands conservation incentives in the Green River basin; and an innovative managementplan to protect the copperbelly water snake.The Council has been supported by Brereton Jones’ successor, Governor Paul Patton, who has extended allmembers’ appointments through 2003. In the future, the Council plans to lobby for funding of the KentuckyNatural History Museum, coordinate inventory efforts, promote conservation on private lands, improveoutreach/communications through newsletters and web site and promote educational efforts.

32

MAINE FOREST BIODIVERSITY PROJECThttp://www.publicconversations.org/Pages/forest.htmlIn May of 1994, nearly 100 people came together to discuss the issue of biodiversity in Maine’s forests.Representing forestland owners and managers (large and small, public and private, non-profit and commercial),advocates (environmental, sporting, property-rights, land conservation, and others), the scientific community,state and federal agencies, and educators, the group learned from outside experts and from each other. At theend of this two-day meeting, the group agreed to constitute itself as the Maine Forest Biodiversity Project(MFBP) and to meet again to further educate themselves about biodiversity.The conference grew in response to an incomplete State initiative to examine the potential for establishingecological reserves, a desire to address biodiversity issues in the matrix of Maine’s forests, and interest toimplement recommendations from the Northern Forests Lands Council report. To ensure a range ofperspectives and a broad base of support, a steering committee oversaw the work of the Maine ForestBiodiversity Project.

Objectives

The mission of the MFBP was to explore and develop strategies that help maintain viable populations ofexisting native species and viable representatives of existing native ecosystems in Maine. MFBP participantsbelieved that the maintenance of biodiversity can be achieved through a combination of reserved lands andmanaged forests. In order to achieve the mission MFBP participants identified three tasks that needed to becompleted including: 1. Assessment of the status and trends of biodiversity in Maine Natural Areas Program;

2. Recommendations for forest practices that help to maintain biodiversity; and3. Completion of an effort begun by the Maine State Planning Office to define and assess the potential

for an ecological reserve system on public and private conservation lands.Process

Between 1994 and 1999, twelve MFBP full-group meetings or conferences were held. Conferencesoccurred two-three times per year and involved discussions, review of ongoing projects or new projectproposals, or presentations and field trips. A number of sub-committees were formed, including ScientificAdvisory, Biodiversity in the Working Forest, Strategic Planning, Forest Inventory and Analysis, PublicOutreach, and Public Conference. The steering committee and the Project Director carefully planconferences with the assistance of professional facilitators. The group process, designed and employed,was intended to encourage productive dialogue among people that normally had little contact with eachother and, in a number of cases, represented factions of the polarized environmental policy conflictsoccurring outside of MFBP.

Products

The MFBP produced a number of reports of statewide significance. These included: a two volumeassessment of the status and trends in Maine’s biological diversity; a report on an inventory and design ofpotential ecological reserves on Maine’s public lands and private nature reserves; a manual for foresters on“biodiversity friendly” forestry practices; and a report on using federal forest databases as a tool formonitoring Maine’s biodiversity.The MFBP officially ended January 1999.

33

MARYLAND’S GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENThttp://www.dnr.state.md.us/greenways/The Green Infrastructure land network is a proposed concept to protect and link Maryland’s remainingecologically valuable lands. These lands include, large contiguous tracts of forestlands, important wildlifehabitats, wetlands, riparian corridors, and areas that reflect key elements of Maryland’s biological diversity.The proposed network would be linked by a system that connects large contiguous blocks of naturalresource lands (hubs) through corridors that encompass the most ecologically valuable areas between thesehubs (e.g., areas of high aquatic integrity, wetlands, wildlife migration routes, and important forest lands).This concept is not a plan or a mandate to protect these valuable lands, but rather it envisions thecooperative efforts of many people and organizations, including government agencies, land trusts, andinterested private landowners.The purpose of the Green Infrastructure land network is to create a coordinated statewide approach to landconservation and restoration that will: 1) systematically identify and protect lands with important ecologicaland biodiversity characteristics; 2) address problems of forest fragmentation, habitat degradation, and waterquality; 3) maximize the influence and effectiveness of public and private land conservation investment;4) promote shared responsibility for land conservation between public and private sectors; and 5) guide andencourage compatible uses and land management practices.The Department of Natural Resources has undertaken a statewide analysis to identify a first cut of the GreenInfrastructure network. Green Infrastructure areas have been identified on public and private landsthroughout the State. Because only limited statewide data was available to define the initial draft of thisnetwork, the Department recognizes that the network will change as better and more up-to-date informationbecomes available. The input of local governments, land trusts, citizens, and scientific experts has beenincorporated in this cooperative endeavor to identify a potential Green Infrastructure land network.An important goal in this process is to produce a set of Green Infrastructure maps and data that could beused for a number of land conservation purposes. These include: 1) furnishing information to help setconservation priorities; 2) providing a strategic means to orchestrate multiple land conservation andrestoration programs and decisions; 3) assisting in the assessment of natural resource related impacts ofproposed developments; 4) identifying opportunities for natural resource enhancement activities; 5)preserving lands for resource based industries, such as, forestry, hunting, fishing, and nature tourism; and 6)completing and utilizing smart growth initiatives to encourage growth only in appropriate areas.

34

MASSACHUSETTS EOEA BIODIVERSITY PROJECThttp://www.state.ma.us/envirMassachusetts Environmental Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) Secretary Bob Durand has madebiodiversity and ecosystem protection a top priority. There are three objectives under his biodiversity andecosystem protection initiative:Build a constituency for biodiversity through education and outreach to the public.EOEA has instituted a school visits program, where the Secretary and agency employees spend timeclassrooms and outdoors teaching kids about the natural world. The Secretary’s Statewide EnvironmentalEducation Plan, which has a biodiversity focus, promotes the environment as an integrating context forlearning in both formal and non-formal education settings. In June 2000, EOEA held a MassachusettsBiodiversity Days when 15,000 citizens were assisted by experts in 100 cities and towns to inventoryanimals and plants. Citizen data was compiled in a central database. EOEA is sponsoring a statewidecitizen’s Biodiversity Days in June 2001. A new publication, “Exploring Biodiversity,” was developed toteach how to inventory species and habitats in backyards and neighborhoods.Protect and restore ecosystems through land protection and ecological restoration projects.EOEA is implementing an aggressive land protection program that uses biodiversity as a primary criterionfor State acquisitions. Six focus areas that contain important biological resources have been selected forpriority protection. The Governor has set a goal to protect 200,000 acres by 2010. The centerpiece of theland acquisition program is the creation of BioReserves in large, unfragmented parcels of biologicallyimportant lands that are open to the public for passive recreation.To guide land protection efforts, EOEA is mapping biological diversity in the State. Intensive fieldinventories of rare species habitat, exemplary natural communities, and associated ecological lands are beingperformed statewide. This effort will produce GIS maps of biodiversity “hot spots,” or priority areas forconservation, and orthophoto maps of vernal pool habitats.The restoration of biodiversity and ecosystem functions also is an important objective of EOEA’sbiodiversity work. An Invasive Species Council has been established and the Wetlands RestorationProgram is implementing an initial goal of restoring 3000 acres of wetlands by 2010. Additional ecologicalrestoration programs include the River Restore Program to evaluate and restore dams for removal to restoreanadromous fish habitat, the Upland Habitat Management Program to restore early successional habitats,and the Lakes and Ponds Restoration Program to restore lakes and ponds.Promote incorporation of biodiversity and ecosystem considerations in public and privatedecision-making.The third objective recognizes that for everything that cannot be protected or restored outright, decision-making must reflect biodiversity and ecosystem considerations. Sustainable Practices Guidelines availableon the EOEA Biodiversity Web Page teach citizens how to consider biological resources in daily decision-making. Business guidelines and developer/municipal guidelines are in development. The Secretary’sForest Vision program is the EOEA’s commitment to biodiversity-based decision-making in forestmanagement.

35

METROPOLITAN CONSERVATION ALLIANCEhttp://wcs.org/home/wild/northamerica/740The Wildlife Conservation Society’s Metropolitan Conservation Alliance develops innovative, locally basedstrategies that tackle ecosystem loss and urban sprawl in the New York City region. This tri-state region ischaracterized by a great variety of habitats and biogeographical divisions, resulting in an unusually highdiversity of temperate flora and fauna. Yet, within the boundaries of this rich natural landscape stand 1,600cities, towns, and villages that comprise 31 counties at the head of the Boston-to-Washington“megalopolis.”Initiated in 1997 by Dr. Michael W. Klemens, a Wildlife Conservation Society conservation scientist andlocal land use planner, the Alliance brings together a wide array of stakeholders and experts to discuss andunderstand the biological, social, economic, and legal aspects of current land use planning systems. It thenprovides biological information that integrates science into planning practices, and communicates these ideasto land use decision-makers and the public.The goal of the Metropolitan Conservation Alliance is to protect wildlife by developing models forconserving ecosystems and their functions in an increasingly urbanized environment. The objectives theAlliance needs to meet to accomplish these tasks are: 1) to create a constituency for wildlife, and theecosystems that support them, that has an understanding of both the conservation problems and potentialsolutions in the New York metropolitan region; 2) to provide the tools needed to address conservationproblems in the region (whether these be information on the ecology of the region or on specific species,developing land use ordinances, training in process oriented methods to develop interdisciplinaryconstituencies, or technical assistance in mapping or land use planning); and 3) to generate ecologicalinformation that is of use in strategic planning for the conservation of biological diversity.The strategies used are part of a four-pronged approach to changing the biological diversity and land useparadigm. The strategies are to: 1) carry out applied, problem-solving research at specific sites; 2) integrateresearch results into local and regional land use practices in the tri-state region; 3) expand the capability andnumber of professionals and decision-makers working on these topics; and 4) raise public awareness of theimportance of these issues as well as potential techniques and methods to address them.

36

MISSOURI BIODIVERSITY TASK FORCE AND MISSOURI BIODIVERSITY COUNCILBiodiversity conservation has been ongoing in Missouri for decades. In 1976, the Design forConservation, a citizens-based initiative, provided the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) with a1/8 of one percent sales tax for expanded conservation activities. Central to the initiative was the creationof the Natural History section within MDC. The section was formed to address non-traditional, non-gameissues, including rare and endangered species and natural areas. Ultimately, the State Natural Heritageprogram was also housed within the Natural History section, and a systematic natural features inventory ofthe entire State was coordinated. Consequently, identification, protection, and management of importantelements of Missouri’s biodiversity have been ongoing for 25 years.When Biodiversity Conservation emerged as an issue in the early 1990s, the Missouri Biodiversity TaskForce was formed to help address the issue. In March of 1992, the Biodiversity Task Force released itsreport “The Biodiversity of Missouri – Definition, Status, and Recommendations for its Conservation.” TheTask Force and the report were sanctioned and endorsed by the Missouri Department of Conservation andthe Mark Twain National Forest in response to increasing concerns surrounding the conservation ofbiodiversity nationally and globally. Missouri was one of the first states to directly tackle the issue, and thereport was used as a model by numerous states. In addition to defining biodiversity and briefly describingits status in Missouri, the report outlined a strategy for further assessing and conserving biodiversity in theState.The goals and objectives outlined in the Biodiversity report have led to many activities that continue today.The goals outlined a coordinated strategy focused on ecosystem conservation that utilizes GIS to assess andplan for resource conservation at a regional scale.The first goal of the report was to coordinate biodiversity conservation efforts among natural resourceagencies and the private sector. This goal led to the formation of the Missouri Biodiversity Council – afourteen-member council with representatives of all state and federal natural resource agencies, The NatureConservancy, the Missouri Farm Bureau, and the Missouri Department of Agriculture. The councilsponsored numerous inter-agency working groups that were focused on the other goals and objectives inthe report. These included working groups for regional resource planning, a Missouri EcologicalClassification System, geographic information systems, sensitive species, and natural resource education.

37

NEW HAMPSHIRE BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PROJECTThe State of New Hampshire is one of the fastest growing states in the eastern U.S. The State isexperiencing the conversion of nearly 25,000 acres of forest to human dominated landscapes each year.New Hampshire’s state government ranks 48th in spending to support the environment. These conditionshave resulted in a number of state and regional non-governmental organizations joining forces to address thethreats to the State’s biological diversity. Under the auspices of the Audubon Society of New Hampshire’sBiodiversity Conservation Project, a number of ongoing efforts and new initiatives have been broughttogether into a coordinated effort to address all aspects of human impacts on biodiversity. Initially, thisproject will focus on preserving and enhancing biodiversity in the rapidly developing southern tier of theState.The New Hampshire Ecological Reserve System Project, a public-private partnership, is working onidentifying and protecting a system of reserves on public and private lands across the State. These lands willbe managed to protect all aspects of biodiversity. Reserve selection criteria have been developed by agroup of New Hampshire’s leading scientists and private funding has been raised to fund a projectcoordinator position for the second year. The first of the system of reserves should be dedicated by spring2001. These reserves will serve as an important part of the green infrastructure supporting biodiversity inthe built environment.The New Hampshire Minimum Impact Development Partnership is working to limit the impact of thegray infrastructure on the environment. This project is developing guidelines to address impacts at thebuilding, site, and landscape levels. Draft guidelines have recently been posted on a web site for use bydevelopers and municipalities. A transportation workgroup has engaged the state department oftransportation in discussions aimed at creating a consensus position on limiting the effect of transportationimprovements and expansion on wildlife. This project has brought together a diverse group of stakeholdersrepresenting non-governmental organizations, state agencies, and the private sector.The interaction between the social infrastructure and biodiversity will be addressed in two ways. TheAudubon Society of New Hampshire is using its seven environmental education centers and ten chaptersaround the State to engage and energize people to take actions to protect biodiversity on their own land andin their own communities. They also hope to collaborate with the Environmental Law Institute to analyzethe effects on current state law and policy on biodiversity and make recommendations for change. Theyhave the support of the Governor for this work, which will afford good access to each of the state agencieswith natural resource responsibilities.

38

NEW JERSEY’S LANDSCAPE PROJECThttp://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/lndscpe.htmThe protection of biodiversity at the state level requires a program that operates at all scales, fromecosystem down to individual communities or parcels. A state agency must take on all species, and for themost part it is the last resort for both species and the interested public.The New Jersey Endangered and Nongame Species Program, a part of the state fish and wildlife agency,began in the heady days marked by the passing of the federal Endangered Species Act and the first EarthDay. The first efforts focused on charismatic mega-fauna: eagles, ospreys, and rattlesnakes, with greatsuccess. With greater understanding, they tackled less popular species: mussels, dragonflies, fish, etc. Nowthey conduct over 30 field projects covering most of New Jersey’s 500+ species. These projects are thefirst line of protection as they often result in direct protection of animals and their habitats. Their projectsare nationally recognized for their leadership and success, such the Delaware Bay Migratory ShorebirdProject and the Cape May Stopover Protection project.By the early 1990’s, the program began working on several projects that added two new importantperspectives to their work. The first grew from the technical need to embrace a larger geographicperspective. Most animals require large areas of habitat; they may have large home ranges (bobcats), orrequire contiguous habitats (interior forest nesting birds), or they may exist in small populations as part of ameta-population (most reptiles and amphibians). To identify these needs they initiated our LandscapeProject, which maps all significant wildlife habitats in the State. In partnership with Rutgers University, theypioneered a scientifically defensible method of ranking all significant patches using state of the art GIS andtheir considerable database of information. Now their mapping is integrated into the state planning systemas well as those of Regional Planning Association, the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, and otherconservation agencies.The second understanding arose from the Landscape Project, which found that the job of protection isimmense and must start with an involved citizenry working at the community level. Consequently, theyexpanded the use of volunteers in all of the projects. Now they have over 2,000 people working oneverything from bald eagle nest watches to shorebird banding. With new grants from two privatefoundations, they are about to expand even further with more training and better feedback. Their work ispopular in the State not only because it is interesting to most people, but also because the data collected(after verification) is used to guide conservation through the Landscape Project and all of its users. NewJersey has created an online data entry system to make reporting easy and efficient. They are also making allof this data available to all users. Although CD’s of the map products are available now, within the next fewweeks the mapping will be online, allowing anyone access to maps of important habitats within theircommunity.

39

NEW MEXICO BIODIVERSITY PROJECTIn 1998, the Center for Wildlife Law, in partnership with Defenders of Wildlife and the Environmental LawInstitute, researched and drafted a report on the laws and policies of New Mexico that affect wildlifeconservation and wildlife habitat protection. The report, entitled New Mexico’s Natural Heritage: AHandbook of Law and Policy, describes this “legal infrastructure,” identifies gaps and opportunities forchange, and suggests the need for a comprehensive biodiversity conservation strategy for the State.The next step was to initiate a discussion about the potential for a comprehensive conservation strategy andto develop some baseline recommendations for a strategy-setting process. Because of funding constraints,project staff began these conversations with just two groups, non-profit conservation organizations and stateagency staff. In September 2000, the Center and Defenders convened a daylong meeting of representativesof conservation organizations from around the State to discuss and determine interest in a statewidebiodiversity conservation strategy. They have also had a number of meetings this fall with individual Stateofficials and staff of the university-based Natural Heritage Program about the potential for biodiversityplanning.They will be consulting with the Environmental Law Institute as they develop a report on the results of thesemeetings and their recommendations for a comprehensive planning and strategy-setting process. The wealthof information and ideas that will come out of ELI’s national biodiversity symposium should also be of greatbenefit as New Mexico considers a biodiversity planning effort.

40

NEW YORK STATE BIODIVERSITY PROJECThttp://research.amnh.org/biodiversity/http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/bri/index.htmlInitiated and coordinated by the American Museum of Natural History’s Center for Biodiversity andConservation, this project is a joint effort between the Museum, The Nature Conservancy of New York, theNew York Natural Heritage Program, the New York State Museum’s Biodiversity Research Institute, theNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Environmental Law Institute. Theproject was initiated in December 1999 and is funded in part by Surdna Foundation, Inc. and the New YorkState Biodiversity Research Institute.The goals of this project are:

• To assess the current status of knowledge of New York State’s biodiversity and to identifyinformation gaps, conservation threats, and research needs by compiling and organizing existingavailable knowledge about biodiversity in the State;

• To make that information useful, meaningful, and accessible to a broad array of users by providingone central location where groups and individuals can find information about all components of NewYork State’s biodiversity;

• To support the development of collaborative strategies that will allow key players throughout theState to take action on issues critical to the State’s biodiversity by incorporating biodiversityinformation into policy and planning, land management, business decision-making, and research andeducation; and

• To prioritize future conservation and systematic work with the full complement of biodiversity inmind.

Results to date:• A needs assessment of key policy-makers, land managers, planners, business and industry

representatives, and educators statewide to determine how best to provide science-basedbiodiversity information.

Anticipated future results:• Summaries of the current status of knowledge for selected taxonomic groups of New York State.• A summary publication about New York State’s biodiversity. It will address the following topics:

what is known, what is unique and special, what are critical threats to biodiversity, what are possiblesolutions, and where future research is needed.

• A central repository web site featuring information about New York State’s biodiversity, to behoused on the New York State Museum’s Biodiversity Research Institute website.

• A workshop for a broad array of key biodiversity information users with emphasis on increasingparticipants’ knowledge of New York’s biodiversity and enhancing their understanding of how touse scientific information in decision-making.

41

OHIO BIODIVERSITY PLANIn 1997, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) began an effort to formulate a five-to-tenyear strategic plan for supporting, increasing, and enhancing biodiversity on ODNR lands and in ODNRprograms. A department-level Biodiversity Team was formed to “develop a departmental strategic plan andimplementation plan which integrates biological diversity principles into department actions.” The ODNRBiodiversity Team formed a Support Group with representatives from outside natural resource agencies andorganizations to review and provide input to the draft strategic plan. In June 1998, ODNR published theBiological Diversity Strategic Plan and Implementation Plan.At the same time, the Environmental Law Institute began working with partner organizations in Ohio –primarily ODNR, National Audubon Society/Ohio, and The Nature Conservancy – to analyze the effects ofthe State’s laws, policies, and programs on biodiversity. The ELI report, Ohio’s Biological Diversity:Strategies and Tools for Conservation, was published in December 1998.In December 1999, ELI, ODNR, The Nature Conservancy’s Ohio Field Office, and National AudubonSociety/Ohio hosted a conference titled “Connecting Ohio’s Biodiversity Interests: A CollaborativeWorkshop.” Over 150 people attended this full-day event, which served to highlight the findings of the ELIreport and to promote the implementation of the ODNR plan.Most recently, the Biodiversity Team produced a Biological Diversity Questionnaire for ODNR employeesto determine employees’ awareness of biodiversity. More than 3,700 surveys were distributed in June 2000and approximately 13 percent were returned. Despite the low response, the survey indicated thatemployees are interested in biodiversity and would like more training and information on the subject. TheTeam is currently working on a brochure about biodiversity and what the Department is doing related tobiodiversity conservation (several examples of Division activities). The brochure should be completed anddistributed to employees by early summer of 2001.

42

OKLAHOMA BIODIVERSITY PLANOn October 10, 1992, Oklahoma Governor David Walters, the Oklahoma Department of WildlifeConservation, and Vice Presidents of Weyerhaeuser Company signed an agreement to develop aBiodiversity Plan for the State of Oklahoma. Weyerhaeuser Company agreed to award the Department ofWildlife Conservation $50,000 per year, renewed annually, for three years to develop the plan. TheDepartment of Wildlife Conservation contracted a biodiversity coordinator to facilitate the plan’sdevelopment. The Department of Wildlife Conservation, in coordination with the Governor and the WildlifeCommission, appointed a Biodiversity Council to oversee the project and established a Biodiversity TaskForce that developed the plan. According to the agreement, the plan would “assess and documentbiodiversity in Oklahoma, assess relationships of biodiversity to economic development and human use ofland and natural resources, and propose the application of these assessments to integrate biodiversity,human use, and economic development to meet Oklahoma’s needs into the future.” Work on the projectbegan on March 1, 1993.Because most of the land in Oklahoma is privately owned, the Department of Wildlife Conservationinvolved a broad range of interests in the plan’s construction, rather than conducting the project as an in-house report. Biodiversity Council membership includes directorate-level individuals of various federal andstate governmental agencies and private organizations that are responsible for biodiversity or whoseactivities impact biodiversity. The Council works to ensure that all issues of biodiversity conservation areaddressed fairly, coordinates the effort, and provides direction to implementation efforts.The Biodiversity Task Force performed the labor involved in creating the Biodiversity Plan. Sevencommittees – biology, conservation and recreation, education, forestry and agriculture, land resources,mineral resources, and water resources – were formed to provide input from a variety of interests.Committee members included both governmental and private representatives and were selected from lists ofnominees as recognized leaders within their profession or organization. During the period that they wereactive, committees met approximately once every two months. The plan was reviewed by each committeeand is the result of the hard work the committees gave toward developing a plan all participants couldsupport.The primary purpose of the biodiversity plan is to provide information about Oklahoma’s biodiversity andmake recommendations on how biodiversity conservation can be included in a variety of economic andother activities. These recommendations are intended to function as a “shopping list” of ideas a landowneror company can review, selecting those to implement that relate to their circumstances. Participation in theBiodiversity Project is strictly voluntary and landowners and companies will not be required to follow therecommendations in this document.

43

OREGON BIODIVERSITY PROJECThttp://www.biodiversitypartners.orgDefenders of Wildlife, The Nature Conservancy, and private industry representatives initiated the OregonBiodiversity Project in 1994. They believed that existing conservation programs were often too narrowlyfocused on individual species and sites, implemented under pressure, and characterized by antagonisticinteractions among opposing interests. Inspired by the Gap Analysis Program, the project used GIStechnology to evaluate the overall distribution of species, habitat types, land ownership and managementstrategies across the Oregon landscape to determine which areas should receive the highest priority forconservation. The project provided a science-based collaborative approach to conserving all native speciesand their habitat. It also provided a comprehensive assessment of different incentive programs that are orcould be used to encourage private landowners to conserve biodiversity on lands that may be used primarilyfor other purposes, like agriculture and forestry.Through the analysis of over 100 ecological and socioeconomic spatial data themes, the strategy highlights42 conservation opportunity areas where desired ecological attributes converge with favorable political andsocial circumstances. The project had three committees (steering, science, and implementation) withrepresentatives from government, industry, conservation, and academia.The project took five years and cost nearly $1 million. It produced a variety of products: an atlas containinga biodiversity assessment and strategy; a poster showing the 42 conservation opportunity areas; a CD-ROM containing biodiversity-related data sets; two conservation incentives books; a process reportdetailing the lessons learned from the project; and several versions of a slide presentation.The Biodiversity Partnership was created as the implementation vehicle for the Oregon Biodiversity Project,and to expand the idea to other states and regions. It is a loosely structured network of diverse groups andindividuals interested in working together to find creative solutions that protect the nation’s natural heritagewithin the context of human activities. Information about the Oregon Project and the partnership can befound on the web at biodiversitypartners.org.The Oregon project/partnership has stimulated considerable discussion about biodiversity in Oregon, andled directly to the conservation of some priority areas. However, since implementation involves multipleagencies and organizations, it is not always possible to attribute a particular action to the project. Defendersmaintains a list of implementation steps that have been taken on the ground and in the policy arena, andupdates it periodically. The summary is available upon request.Currently, Biodiversity Partners are working on a series of legislative proposals to address elements in thestrategy. For example, several federal and state initiatives will address incentives for private landowners.The Oregon Progress Board has adopted eighteen new environmental benchmarks, including three forbiodiversity. There are also efforts underway to improve the management and distribution of biologicalinformation, and to improve the alignment between land use planning and the conservation of naturalresources.

44

45

PENNSYLVANIA BIODIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPIn September 1998, Governor Tom Ridge’s 21st Century Environment Commission presented its findingson the state of the environment and natural resources in Pennsylvania. The Commission report proposedthat a broad-based public-private partnership be formed to move forward with recommendations focusingon the protection and conservation of biodiversity, and that the Department of Conservation and NaturalResources (DCNR) take a leadership role among the public agencies. Responding to this challenge,DCNR Secretary John Oliver, along with the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, the PennsylvaniaGame Commission, and the Governor’s Sportsmen’s Advisor convened a coalition of over 30 groups andindividuals in October 1999 to discuss implementation of these recommendations.After a series of meetings, the Pennsylvania Biodiversity Partnership (PBP), a public-private partnershipdedicated to building a biodiversity conservation movement in the State, was formed in March 2000. A21-member Interim Executive Board, including representatives from state agencies, industry, andconservation organizations as well as individuals, consented to establish the organization within one year andan unpaid Interim Executive Director was appointed. PBP is a voluntary coalition and anyone interested inPennsylvania’s biodiversity may participate in one of the seven task forces (education, funding,bioinformatics, public relations, policy, science, stewardship). Membership presently includesapproximately 50 organizations and individuals and most of the task forces have met at least twice during2000. Articles of Incorporation as a nonprofit organization were filed in December 2000; bylaws have beendrafted and reviewed by DCNR legal staff; and they are presently pursuing status as an independent501(c)(3) organization.PBP’s mission is to conserve biodiversity statewide by promoting communication and cooperation among abroad spectrum of stakeholders and includes the following strategies and objectives:

• Educate stakeholders and the public on the ways biodiversity sustains economic and environmentalhealth and ensures quality of life for all citizens;

• Develop a scientifically based strategic plan for short-term and long-term conservation ofbiodiversity;

• Advise state agencies on opportunities and programs to conserve biodiversity;• Encourage state agencies to take a leadership role in the conservation of biodiversity;• Promote voluntary conservation of biodiversity on private lands;• Advocate both private and public long-term funding for biodiversity conservation; and• Assess and regularly account for progress on biodiversity conservation in Pennsylvania.

PBP is unique among biodiversity organizations in Pennsylvania in its involvement of government, businessand industry, and environmental organizations as equal partners. Although members represent diversebackgrounds and opinions, a consensus has emerged that a plan focusing on strategies and opportunities forprotecting Pennsylvania’s biodiversity must be developed and implemented.PBP is presently embarking on strategic planning for conserving biodiversity statewide, with funding forPhase 1 (information gathering and benchmarking) from the Heinz Endowments, Wild ResourceConservation Fund, and DCNR (pending). A draft strategic plan will emerge from the information and dataassembled during Phase 1 and will serve as the focus of facilitated stakeholder meetings in Phase 2 (2002)and public meetings in Phase 3 (2003).

WISCONSIN BIODIVERSITY PLANIn the early 1990s, the Resource Management Division Administrator in the Wisconsin Department ofNatural Resources, James Addis, initiated discussions within the department on how to protect Wisconsin’sbiological diversity. These discussions led to the formation of a group of natural resources specialists withinthe department to develop a strategy for the conservation of biological diversity. The group decided that inorder to develop a strategy that would be implemented by department managers, it was necessary toprovide managers with “a common point of reference for incorporating the conservation of biodiversity intoour management framework.” The outcome of their work was “Wisconsin’s Biodiversity as a ManagementIssue: A Report to Department of Natural Resources Managers.”The Natural Resources Board, which develops natural resources policy in the State, approved the report in1995 with the understanding that the report would serve as a dialogue with the department’s “partners andcustomers;” that the department would adopt ecosystem management as the decision-making model forplanning and management; and that the department would work with the Natural Resources Board to setpriorities to develop policy concerning the actions listed for the biological community types. The report alsocalled upon the department to use ecoregions as the geographic basis for developing consensus on regionalgoals for program planning and to use adaptive management to conserve biodiversity and retain futureoptions.Since 1995, the department has implemented the ecosystem management decision model as the basis formanagement decision-making and planning. It has revised its strategic plan to include ecosystem thinking.The department’s administrative boundaries have been changed to correspond to watershed boundaries,and the department’s structure was reorganized to form integrated teams that would implement policy andprograms. The Division of Land developed the Ecological Landscapes of Wisconsin as the geographicbasis for planning for the land programs, and has begun to provide ecological information by landscapes tofocus planning on biological diversity issues. Performance measures are being incorporated into biennialwork planning to help assure achievement of ecosystem management goals. This process is “evolution, notrevolution;” it is the gradual agency-wide movement toward the goal of protecting biological diversity.

46

APPENDIX B

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AVAILABLE STATE AND REGIONAL

BIODIVERSITY INITIATIVE PUBLICATIONS

Compiled by the Environmental Law Institute

California

• Memorandum of Understanding. September 19, 1991. “The Agreement on Biological Diversity:California’s Coordinated Regional Strategy to Conserve Biological Diversity.”

• California Biodiversity Council. California Biodiversity News. Bi-monthly newsletter.

Chicago Wilderness• Sullivan, Jerry. June 1999. Chicago Wilderness: An Atlas of Biodiversity. Chicago, IL: Chicago

Region Biodiversity Council.• Chicago Region Biodiversity Council. 1999. Biodiversity Recovery Plan. Chicago, IL: Chicago

Region Biodiversity Council.• Chicago Wilderness. Wonder All Around You. Downers Grove, IL: Chicago Wilderness.• Chicago Wilderness. Chicago Wilderness Progress Report: The First 2 Years. Chicago, IL.

Delaware• Wilkinson, Jessica B., Shi-Ling Hsu, Brian Rohan, David Schorr, and James McElfish. December

1999. Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation.Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute.

• Wilkinson, Jessica B., Shi-Ling Hsu, Brian Rohan, David Schorr, and James McElfish. December1999. Executive Summary. Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for BiodiversityConservation. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute.

47

Florida’s Ecological Network Project

• Hoctor, Thomas S., Margaret H. Carr, Paul D. Zwick. August 2000. Identifying a LinkedReserve System Using a Regional Landscape Approach: the Florida Ecological Network.Conservation Biology. Vol. 14, No. 4: 984-1000.

• University of Florida’s Department of Landscape Architecture, Department of Urban and RegionalPlanning GeoPlan Center, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Program in LandscapeEcology. July 1999. The Florida Statewide Greenways System Planning Project:Recommendations for the Physical Design of a Statewide Greenways System.

• University of Florida. February 1999. The Florida Statewide Greenways System PlanningProject.

Florida’s Closing the Gaps Project

• Cox, J., R. Kautz, M. MacLaughlin, and T. Gilbert. 1994. Closing the gaps in Florida’s wildlifehabitat conservation system. Technical report. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Fish and WildlifeConservation Commission.

• Cox, J. A. and R. S. Kautz. 2000. Habitat conservation needs of rare and imperiled wildlifein Florida. Technical report. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Fish and Wildlife ConservationCommission.

• Hoehn, T. 1998. Rare and imperiled fish species of Florida: a watershed perspective.Technical report. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

Illinois Conservation 2000

• Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Conservation 2000 Ecosystem Program. IllinoisDepartment of Natural Resource Office of Realty and Environmental Planning.

• Krohe, James Jr. 1998. The Illinois River Bluffs: An Inventory of the Region’s Resources.Illinois Department of Natural Resources Office of Reality and Environmental Planning

• Partnership Perspective. January 2001. Partnership Perspectives: C2000 EcosystemsProgram. Department of Natural Resources Office of Realty and Environmental Planning.

• Post, Susan. 2000. The Vermilion River Basin: An Inventory of the Region’s Resources.Illinois Department of Natural Resources Office of Realty and Environmental Planning.

• Post, Susan. 1998. The Spoon River Basin: An Inventory of the Region’s Resources. IllinoisDepartment of Natural Resources Office of Realty and Environmental Planning.

• Suloway, Liane, Mark Joselyn, Patrick W. Brown. 1996. Inventory of Resource Rich Areas InIllinois: An Evaluation of Ecological Resources. Illinois Department of Natural Resources.

48

Indiana

• Bennett, Jessica, James M. McElfish, and Robert Fischman. 1995. Indiana’s BiologicalDiversity: Strategies and Tools for Conservation. Washington, DC: Environmental LawInstitute.

• Indiana Biodiversity Initiative. Mission Statement and Technical Team Initiatives.

• Indiana Biodiversity Initiative. 1998. “A Nature Mapping User’s Manual.”

Kentucky

• Executive Order 94-247 establishing the Biodiversity Task Force.

• Executive Order 95-1391 establishing the Biodiversity Council.

• Commonwealth of Kentucky. October 1995. Kentucky Alive! A report of the KentuckyBiodiversity Task Force. Ed. Diana J. Taylor. Frankfort, KY.

• Commonwealth of Kentucky. October 1995. Executive Summary. Frankfort, KY.

Maine

• Gawler, Susan C., John J. Albright, Peter D. Vickery and Frances C. Smith. January 1996.Biological Diversity in Maine. Augusta, ME: Maine Natural Areas Program for the Maine ForestBiodiversity Project.

Massachusetts

• Barbour, Henry, Tim Simmons, Patricia Swain and Henry Woolsey. 1998. ProtectingBiodiversity in Massachusetts: Our Irreplaceable Heritage. Natural Heritage & EndangeredSpecies Program, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, and the Massachusetts Chapterof The Nature Conservancy.

• Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. Massachusetts Biodiversity InitiativeSummary.

• Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. Results of First MassachusettsBiodiversity Days, June 9-11, 2000.

Metropolitan Conservation Alliance

• Wildlife Conservation Society. Metropolitan Conservation Alliance: Conservation at theSuburban-Rural Frontier. Brochure.

Minnesota

• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. July 1997. Directions for Natural Resources: AnEcosystem-Based Framework for Setting Natural Resource Management Priorities.

49

Missouri

• Conservation Commission of Missouri. 1997. Missouri’s Web of Life. Jefferson City, MO:Conservation Commission of the State of Missouri.

• Nigh, Timothy A., William L. Pflieger, Paul L. Redrearn, Jr., Walter A. Schroeder, Alan R.Templeton, Frank R. Thompson III. March 1992. The Biodiversity of Missouri: Definition,Status, and Recommendations for its Conservation. Biodiversity Task Force, Missouri.

• Davit, Carol. 1999. Biodiversity Activities Report 1999. Missouri Department of Conservation.

New Hampshire

• Taylor, James, Thomas. D. Lee and Laura Falk McCarthy, Eds. 1996. New Hampshire’s LivingLegacy: The Biodiversity of the Granite State. Concord, NH: New Hampshire Fish and GameDepartment, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program.

• New Hampshire Biodiversity Assessment. July 1998.

New Jersey

• Niles, Lawrence J., Jim Myers, Mike Valent. The Landscape Project. New Jersey Endangeredand Nongame Species Program.

New Mexico

• Center for Wildlife Law, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Environmental Law Institute. February1999. New Mexico’s Natural Heritage: A Handbook of Law and Policy.

Ohio

• Bennett, Jessica and James McElfish. 1998. Ohio’s Biological Diversity: Strategies and Toolsfor Conservation. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute.

• Ohio Department of Natural Resources. June 1998. Biological Diversity Strategic Plan andImplementation Plan. Columbus, OH.

Oklahoma

• Oklahoma Biodiversity Task Force. 1996. Oklahoma’s Biodiversity Plan: A Shared Vision forConserving Our Natural Heritage. Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma Department of WildlifeConservation.

• Oklahoma Department of Wildlife. Conservation Ways Landowners Can Manage ForBiodiversity. Oklahoma City, OK.

50

Oregon

• Defenders of Wildlife. 1998. Oregon’s Living Landscape: Strategies and Opportunities toConserve Biodiversity.

• Defenders of Wildlife. 1998. Oregon’s Living Landscape: An Interactive Introduction toOregon’s Biodiversity. CD that includes data sets used in the project.

• Defenders of Wildlife. Stewardship Incentives: Conservation Strategies for Oregon’s WorkingLandscape.

• Oregon Biodiversity Project. Looking for the Big Picture: The Process Behind the OregonBiodiversity Project. Lake Oswego, OR: Defenders of Wildlife.

• Oregon Biodiversity Project. Conservation Opportunity Area Profiles.

• Oregon Conservation Incentives Summit. 1999. Incentives for Conservation.

Pennsylvania

• Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory.Harrisburg, PA: Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

• Pennsylvania 21st Century Environmental Commission. September 1998. Report of thePennsylvania 21st Century Environmental Commission. http://www.21stcentury.state.pa.us

• Pennsylvania Biodiversity Technical Committee. 1995. A Heritage for the 21st Century:Conserving Pennsylvania’s Native Biological Diversity. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Fish andBoat Commission.

Wisconsin

• Department of Natural Resources. May 1995. Wisconsin’s Biodiversity as a ManagementIssue. Madison, Wisconsin: Department of Natural Resources.

51

Miscellaneous• Bennett, Jessica. July/August 1998. “State Biodiversity Planning.” The Environmental Forum.

V.15, No. 4: 19-27. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute.• Ecological Society of America Committee on Land Use. June 2000. Ecological Principles for

Managing Land Use. Vol. 10 Number 3. Ecological Applications. http://esa.sdsc.edu/esalanduse.htm.

• GAP. A Geographic Approach to Planning For Biological Diversity. Moscow, ID: GAP.http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/gap

• George, Susan. January 2001. State Biodiversity Strategies: A Status Report. Albuquerque,NM: Defenders of Wildlife.

• Island Press. 2000. Land Use Planning and Design. Covelo, CA: Island Press.• Island Press. 2001. Environmental Sourcebook: Books for better Conservation and

Management. Washington, DC: Island Press.• National Invasive Species Council. January 18, 2001. Management Plan: Meeting the Invasive

Species Challenge. http://www.invasivespecies.gov/• U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. September 1993. Harmful Non-Indigenous

Species in the United States. OTA-F-565. Washington, DC. Government Printing Office. http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/ns20/alpha_f.html.

• Wilkinson, Jessica Bennett. 1999. “State Biodiversity Conservation Efforts: Where the Law Meetsthe Land.” Issues in Science and Technology. National Academy of Science, The University ofTexas at Dallas.

52

APPENDIX C

POINTS OF CONTACT FOR STATE AND REGIONAL INITIATIVES

California Biodiversity CouncilMarc HoshovskyCalifornia Department of Fish and Game1416 9th StreetSacramento, CA 95814Tel: 916-332-2446Fax: 916-653-2588mhoshovs@dfg.ca.gov

Carl RountreeBureau of Land Management2800 Cottage WaySacramento, CA 95825Tel: 916-978-4630Fax: 916-978-4657crountre@ca.blm.gov

Chicago WildernessCatherine WernerChicago Wilderness8 S. Michigan Ave.Suite 900Chicago, IL 60657Tel: 312-346-2540 x53cwerner@tnc.org

Delaware Biodiversity ConservationPartnershipChristina Bernat, Biodiversity CoordinatorDepartment of Natural Resources and EnvironmentalControl89 Kings HighwayDover, DE 19901Tel: 302-739-4403Fax: 302-739-6242cbernat@dnrec.state.de.us

Florida’s Closing the Gaps ProjectRandy KautzOffice of Environmental ServicesFlorida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission620 South Meridian StreetTallahassee, FL 323991600Tel: 850-488-6661kautzr@fwc.state.fl.us

Florida’s Ecological Network ProjectTom HoctorDepartment of Wildlife and ConservationUniversity of Florida418 ArchitectureP.O. Box 115704Gainsville, FL 32611Tel: 352-392-5037Fax: 352-392-3308tomh@geoplan.ufl.edu

Hawaii’s Secretariat for Conservation BiologyKen KaneshiroCenter for Conservation Research and TrainingUniversity of Hawaii3050 Maile Way, Gilmore 406Honolulu, HI 96822Tel: 808-956-6739Fax: 808-956-2647kykanesh@hawaii.edu

Illinois Conservation 2000 EcosystemPartnershipsMarvin HubbellIllinois Department of Natural Resources320 W. Washington Street, 7th FloorSpringfield, IL 62704Tel: 217-524-0500Fax: 217-557-0727mhubbell@dnrmail.state.il.us

53

Indiana Biodiversity InitiativeBarb HoslerUS Fish and Wildlife ServiceBloomington Field Office620 South Walker StreetBloomington, INTel: 812-334-4261 x 209Fax: 812-334-4273barbara_hosler@fws.org

Kentucky Biodiversity CouncilWard WilsonBernardin Lochmueller & Associates718 West Main Street, Suite 200Louisville, KY 40202Tel: 502-540-1100Fax: 502-540-1101wwilson@blainc-lky.com

Maine Forest Biodiversity ProjectMolly Docherty, DirectorMaine Natural Areas Program93 State House StationAugusta, ME 04333Tel: 207-287-8045Fax: 207-287-8040molly.docherty@state.me.us

Massachusetts EOEA Biodiversity ProjectSharon McGregorAssistant Secretary for Biological Conservation andEcosystem ProtectionExecutive Office of Environmental Affairs251 Causeway StreetBoston, MA 02114Tel: 617-626-1150Fax: 617-626-1181sharon.mcgregor@state.ma.us

Metropolitan Conservation AllianceMichael Klemens, DirectorMetropolitan Conservation AllianceWildlife Conservation Society68 Purchase Street, 3rd FloorRye, NY 10580Tel: 914-925-9175Fax: 914-925-9164mwklemens@aol.com

Missouri Biodiversity Task ForceTimothy Nigh, Planning Specialist/EcologistMissouri Department of ConservationColombia, MO 65211Tel: 573-884-6791Fax: 573-526-5582night@mail.conservation.state.mo.us

New Hampshire Biodiversity ConservationProjectRichard CookVice-President for ConservationAudubon Society of New Hampshire3 Silk Farm RoadConcord, NH 03301Tel: 603-224-9909Fax: 603-226-0902rcook@nhaudubon.org

Maryland’s Green Infrastructure AssessmentJohn WolfMaryland Department of Natural ResourcesTawes State Office Building, E-2580 Taylor AveAnnapolis, MD 21401Tel: 410-260-8794jwolf@dnr.state.md.us

54

New Jersey Landscape ProjectLarry Niles, ChiefEndangered and Nongame Species ProgramNew Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtectionP.O. Box 400Trenton, NJ 08625Fax: 609-984-1414lniles@dep.state.nj.us

New Mexico Biodiversity ProjectJudy Flynn-O’BrienCenter for Wildlife LawUNM Institute of Public Law1117 Stanford NEAlbuquerque, NM 87131Tel: 505- 277-1050Fax: 505-277-7064jafob@unm.edu

New York State Biodiversity ProjectElizabeth Johnson, ManagerMetropolitan Biodiversity ProgramsAmerican Museum of Natural HistoryCentral Park West at 79th StreetNew York, NY 100245192Tel: 212-769-5047Fax: 212-769-5292ejohnson@amnh.org

Ohio Biodiversity PlanJennifer WindusResearch & Monitoring AdministratorOhio Department of Natural ResourcesDivision of Natural Areas and Preserves1889 Fountain Square, Building F-1Columbus, OH 43224Tel: 614-265-6468Fax: 614-267-3096jennifer.windus@dnr.state.oh.us

Oklahoma Biodiversity CouncilRon SuttlesNatural Resources SectionDepartment of Wildlife Conservation1801 North LincolnOklahoma City, OK 73105Tel: 405-521-4602Fax: 405-521-6536rsuttles@odwc.state.ok.us

Oregon Biodiversity ProjectSara VickermanDefenders of Wildlife1637 Laurel StreetLake Oswego, OR 97034Tel: 503-697-3222Fax: 503-697-3268svickerman@defenders.org

Pennsylvania Biodiversity PartnershipSue ThompsonInterim Executive DirectorPennsylvania Biodiversity GroupP.O. Box 60071Pittsburgh, PA 152110671Tel: 412-431-4449 x241Fax: 412-431-4558sthomp@andrew.cmu.edu

Wisconsin Biodiversity PlanSigne HoltzBureau of Endangered ResourcesDepartment of Natural Resources ER/4P.O. Box 7921Madison, WI 537077921Tel: 608-264-9210Fax: 608-266-2925holtzs@mail01.dnr.state.wi.us

55

56

APPENDIX D

GRANT OPPORTUNITIES

Many state biodiversity initiative representatives indicated that a lack of financial resources is a majorimpediment to reaching their goals. Because these efforts are often collaborative ventures, not housed inone organization or agency and not funded by a single source, identifying major funding vehicles remains achallenge. To facilitate this process, the following is a list of potential federal sources of funding for state-based initiatives.

Department of Transportation

A new Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration rule allows federal highway fundingfrom TEA-21 to be used for mitigation of impacts to wetlands and natural habitats that may include somewetland planning (Part 777). The rule defines natural habitat as “a complex of natural, primarily native orindigenous vegetation, not currently subject to cultivation or artificial landscaping, a primary purpose ofwhich is to provide habitat for wildlife, either terrestrial or aquatic.” Under this definition, upland habitatreceives the same consideration as wetlands. Under the rule, the Federal Highway Administration is notrequired to mitigate impacts to resources, but it does clarify eligibility for funding. Significantly, the ruleallows mitigation funds to be used for road projects that are already completed. Under mitigation ofimpacts “Federal-aid funds may participate in the development of statewide and regional wetlandsconservation plans.”State departments of transportation will have increased flexibility and funding for planning and implementingmitigation for impacts to wetland and upland habitat caused by highway projects. Each state’senvironmental agency will need to work with the state department of transportation to create proposals forwetland planning and mitigation, but the TEA-21 funds may be significant to implementing biodiversityplanning activities. The program went into effect in March 2001.For additional information:Federal Register. Vol. 65, No. 251. Friday, December 29, 2000. Pp. 82913–82926.http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/a001229c.html

National Marine Fisheries Service: Community-Based Restoration Program

The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service’s Community-Based Restoration Program (CRP) is a federal financial and technical assistance program that funds grass-roots, community-based activities that restore living marine resources and their habitats, includinganadromous species (such as salmon and herring that that spawn in freshwater and migrate to the sea).For additional information: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/community/feb9

57

U.S. Department of Agriculture

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS) grantprogram provides large grants (as much as $3 million in FY 2000) for control of invasive species (see NaturalResource Management 14.2). The program will focus on newly emerging non-native invasive species thatthreaten, or are already impacting agricultural, forest and rangeland resources and their associated waterways.Proposals will be considered that address five key areas: 1) prevention of introductions (including pathwayanalysis), 2) prevention of spread of newly established invasive species 3) early detection of and rapidresponse to invasion, 4) monitoring of control efforts, and 5) quantification of impact of the invasive species(e.g. economic and/or ecological). Letters of intent (which are strongly encouraged) are due March 23, 2001.Proposals are due April 23, 2001.For additional information: http://www.reeusda.gov/ifafs/

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program

The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is a voluntary incentive program to assist private landowners inrestoring fish and wildlife habitat. Interested landowners may contact the Service and receive expert adviceand financial assistance (cost-sharing) to restore degraded habitats. The Partners Program helps landownersrestore wetlands, native prairies and grasslands, riparian areas (i.e., streamside areas) and stream habitat onprivate lands. The four goals of the Partners Program are to: 1) accomplish state-of-the-art habitat restorationon private and tribal lands; 2) build partnerships; 3) demonstrate technology; and 4) increase publicunderstanding of, and participation in, habitat restoration. Since its start in 1987, the Partners Program hasentered into 24,000 landowner agreements to restore or improve 550,000 acres of native grasslands, 526,000acres of wetlands, and 3,200 miles of riparian and stream habitat.For additional information: http://partners.fws.gov

Coastal Program

The Coastal Program forms partnerships to conserve coastal habitats including salt marshes, forests, dunes,prairies, mud flats, and stream banks. The program provides habitat assessments, restoration expertise, andfinancial assistance to a variety of partners, including private landowners, other federal agencies, state andlocal governments, conservation organizations, local land trusts, watershed councils, and businesses. Thesecooperative partnerships: 1) restore coastal wetlands, uplands, and riparian areas; 2) protect coastal habitatsthrough conservation easements and fee-title acquisitions; 3) remove or retrofit barriers to fish passage incoastal watersheds, and 4) control non-native invasive species that threaten estuarine health. Since 1994, theCoastal Program has protected or restored more than 300,000 acres of habitat, and reopened 3,300 miles ofcoastal streams to fish passage. In 2001, the Coastal Program will fund projects in 15 major coastalwatersheds around the country.For additional information: http://www.fws.gov/cep/coastweb.html

National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grants

The National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grants program provides funds to assist states in pursuingcoastal wetland conservation. Funds can be used for acquisition of coastal lands or waters, and forrestoration, enhancement, or management of coastal wetland ecosystems. The grants are awarded on acompetitive basis. Eligible applicants include the coastal states (including the Great Lakes) and TrustTerritories. Conservation of coastal habitats is of vital importance to migratory birds, many endangered andthreatened species, and anadromous and inter-jurisdictional fish and shellfish resources. The grant programwas established by the Coastal Wetlands Planning, protection, and Restoration Act of 1990.For additional information: http://www.fws.gov/cep/coastweb.html

58

National Fish Passage Program

The National Fish Passage Program works with local communities, partner agencies, and individuals tovoluntarily restore natural flows and fish migration by removing or by-passing barriers. Project funds areprimarily used to retrofit culverts, build fishways, and install fish screens.For additional information: http://fisheries.fws.gov/DraftFP/index.htm

Wildlife Grants Program (Fiscal Year 2001)

State Wildlife Grants Program

Under the Interior Appropriations Act, Congress provided $50 million for fiscal year 2001 for a State WildlifeGrants Program. This cost-shared, competitively awarded program was designed to provide funding to statesfor “on-the-ground conservation projects that implement existing or future planning efforts to stabilize, restore,enhance, and protect species and habitats of conservation concern.”Criteria used to evaluate proposals includes: “the extent of threats to habitat used by the species benefited bythe project; whether a project brings in multiple partners particularly partners across state lines, tribal partnersor international partners; and the extent which a project leverages federal funds.”

Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program

Under this program, funds are provided for: state planning, wildlife conservation education, wildlife associatedrecreation, and existing programs and projects. The focus is on those species with the greatest conservationand funding needs. State plans must include a description of four elements: 1) state fish and wildlife agencyauthority or delegated authority to develop and implement the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program;2) eligible projects; 3) the state’s involvement with the public in the plan and implementation; and 4) the state’scommitment to development of a wildlife conservation strategy, including identification of targets, threats,solutions, monitoring, and periodic strategy review.

Application Information

To be eligible for grants under the programs, states must have in place or agree to develop a wildlifeconservation plan for the conservation of the state’s full array of wildlife and their habitats. The WildlifeConservation and Restoration Program funds have been distributed to states according to a standard formula.For more information on how to utilize these funds or to apply for the State Wildlife Grants Program, contactyour state fish and wildlife director’s office or Tim Hess with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Phone: (703)358-1849).For additional information:Federal Register Vo. 68, No. 16. Wednesday, January 24, 2001. Pp 7657-7660.http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/a010124c.html

59

60

APPENDIX EADDITIONAL RESOURCES

The Biodiversity Action Network (BIONET)

The Biodiversity Action Network was established in 1993 at a meeting of non-governmental organizations inWashington, D.C. in response to the need for a network on biodiversity issues. BIONET’s mission is toadvocate the effective implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) worldwide,primarily through coordinated, joint non-governmental programs and information dissemination designed tocatalyze governmental action.For additional information: http://bionet-us.org/

The Biodiversity Partnership

Administered by Defenders of Wildlife, the Biodiversity Partnership is an alliance of organizations andindividuals involved in cooperative efforts to conserve Oregon’s biological diversity. The partnership wascreated to carry on the work of the Oregon Biodiversity Project. The project pioneered a new,collaborative approach to conservation planning that produced a big-picture view of conservation prioritiesfor Oregon’s native species and the habitats and ecosystems that support them. Building on that diversebase of support, the Biodiversity Partnership provides and umbrella for an array of efforts to implement theproject’s conservation strategies.For additional information: http://www.biodiversitypartners.org

The Biodiversity Project

The Biodiversity Project is an excellent source of information and expertise on how to communicate aboutbiodiversity issues. The Biodiversity Project’s mission is to add strength and value to the environmentalmovement’s public outreach on biodiversity, by working with partners in advocacy, education, science,communications, grantmaking and other fields. The Project develops proven and promising strategies andpractices for communication and public education, and works to strengthen the outreach capacity of groupsand institutions who communicate with the public on biodiversity. Several of their publications, available onthe web (http://www.biodiversityproject.org/) may be of particular interest: Getting on Message: Makingthe Biodiversity-Sprawl Connection; Tip Sheet: Crafting Effective Messages; Tip Sheet:Communicating about Biodiversity; and Grantmakers Interested in Biodiversity Outreach.For additional information: http://www.biodiversityproject.org/

61

Integrated Taxonomic Information System

The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) is a partnership of U.S., Canadian, and Mexicanagencies, other organizations, and taxonomic specialists cooperating on the development of an online,scientifically credible, list of biological names focusing on the biota of North America. ITIS is also aparticipating member of Species 2000, an international project indexing the world’s known species.For additional information: http://rndhouse.nrcs.usda.gov/plantproj/itis/index.html

National Biological Information Infrastructure

The National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) is a broad, collaborative program to provideincreased access to data and information on the nation’s biological resources. The NBII links diverse, high-quality biological databases, information products, and analytical tools maintained by NBII partners andother contributors in government agencies, academic institutions, non-government organizations, and privateindustry. NBII partners and collaborators also work on new standards, tools, and technologies that make iteasier to find, integrate, and apply biological resources information. Resource managers, scientists,educators, and the general public use the NBII to answer a wide range of questions related to themanagement, use, or conservation of the nation’s biological resources.For additional information: http://www.nbii.gov/

NatureServe

NatureServe is a web site that serves as a source for authoritative conservation information on more than50,000 plants, animals, and ecological communities of the United States and Canada. NatureServeprovides in-depth information on rare and endangered species, but includes common plants and animals too.NatureServe is a product of the Association for Biodiversity Information in collaboration with the NaturalHeritage Network.For additional information: www.natureserve.org

U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resource Division

The Biological Resource Division (BRD), a Division within the U.S. Geological Survey that works withothers to provide the scientific understanding and technologies needed to support the sound managementand conservation of the nation’s biological resources. BRD develops scientific and statistically reliablemethods and protocols to assess the status and trends of the nation’s biological resources; leads in thedevelopment and use of the technologies needed to synthesize, analyze, and disseminate biological andecological information; enters into partnerships with scientific collaborators to produce high-quality scientificinformation; and partners with the users of scientific information to ensure the information’s relevance andapplication to real problems.For additional information: http://biology.usgs.gov/

62

The Environmental L aw Institu te

For over three decades, the Environmental Law

Institute has played a pivotal role in shaping the

fields of environmental law, management, and

policy domestically and abroad. Today, eli is an

internationally recognized, independent research

and education center. Through its information

services, training courses and seminars, research

programs, and policy recommendations, the

Institute activates a broad constituency of environ-

mental professionals in government, industry, the

private bar, public interest groups, and academia.

Central to eli’s mission is convening this diverse

constituency to work cooperatively in developing

effective solutions to pressing environmental

problems. The Institute is governed by a board

of directors who represent a balanced mix of

leaders within the environmental profession.

Support for the Institute comes from individuals,

foundations, government, corporations, law firms,

and other sources.

Environmental Law Institute® P Street, n.w., Suite Washington, d.c. Telephone: ⁽⁾ -Fax: ⁽⁾ -E-mail: law@eli.orgWeb site: www.eli.org

isbn ---

Environmental Law Institute®Research ReportFirst State Biodiversity SymposiumJanuary -,

Status of the States:

Innovative State Strategies for

Biodiversity Conservation